Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 March 6



Template:United States Senate

 * 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. &mdash;dgies tc 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ought to merge into USCongress & delete. It's too cumbersome in most articles; it scrunches the content of articles, too. I don't know if there's a Wikipedia policy to this point, but here's what I'm thinking: a horizontal NavBox at the bottom of the article is easier to get to because you only have to go to the bottom instead of searching along a long vertical list that runs down to the middle of the article. In general, short VertNavBoxes are OK— see, e.g., US Historical Document. Furthermore, the nice thing about the HorizNavBox (USCongress) is that it has House+Senate+Other all together. —Markles 22:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Vertical navboxes this long are not uncommon. If you'd like to establish a consensus over at the appropriate Wikiproject not to use this, then come back, but TfD is not the place to decide that. -Amarkov moo! 02:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending a great consensus. We use a lot of these on Islam related articles and while they can be obtrusive... I don't think we need to delete them.  Just use the judiciously. gren グレン 17:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasoning set out by User:Grenavitar --Daysleeper47 20:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amarkov. —dima/s-ko/ 04:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amarkov and dima. - Nick C 13:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Grenavitar...as well there are many topics covered in this template and it makes it easy to navigate amongst them without having to scroll to the bottom of articles. 22:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Amarkov, take it to a wikiproject and decide. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Amarkov. --GHcool 01:58, 14 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 page.

Template:Fu'un Series

 * 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 speedily deleted by NawlinWiki under author request. mattbr30 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

A two-link navbox. Can't we speedy these? --- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I made it to make it easier to navigate between the two. Is it really that big of a problem? :<
 * If you want it removed, I'll dispose of it then. I was only trying to help.--Ralf Loire 22:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it, please? I'd really appreciate it. >_>; --Ralf Loire 23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, two games hardly constitutes a series. Combination  00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a third one planned... but it never saw the light of day, as it was canceled. It would have been a series then, eh? :< Shiet.


 * I feel really stupid. I ought to be banned for making it in the first place. XD--Ralf Loire 00:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and snowball unless any sort of argument for its prolonged existence is raised. Curtmack of the Asylum 01:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I suppose I really don't care... but, are things like Template:Fallout series any better? Well, maybe two games better. gren グレン 16:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Since Ralf has requested its deletion it's now a CSD (G7) and this debate should be closed. Curtmack of the Asylum 19:37, 7 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 page.

Template:CR-SLA-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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 05:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag is not used in any images or articles. The tag also may not be free enough, as there is no indication that modification is permitted. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 02:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: reproduction is insufficient, contributions must be GFDL-licensed. — PSUMark2006   talk  |  contribs  18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Per PSU's comment above. --64.253.48.73 14:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Tag has no use on Wikipedia since Wikipedia image contributions must be GFDL-licensed. For the record, there is a discussion on this template at Template:CR-SLA-2 -- Jreferee 21:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Unused template. &mdash;davidh.oz.au 01:23, 16 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 page.

Template:John

 * 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. -- Jreferee 21:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC) (closed by non-administrator per Non-administrators closing discussions)

This template is POV because it assumes that the author of the 3 Johannine epistles, Revelation, and the Gospel of John are all the same person. To help fix this POV, the creator of this template also redirected, without discussion, John of Patmos. It was controversial in ancient times whether there was on author of all these works, and today, the majority view of mainstream scholars is that at least 3, if not 4 different men authored these 5 NT books. This template isn't helpful because it can only be applied to 8 or 9 articles. The NT books are already included in the NT book template, and the links to the authors pages are clearly listed in the lead of these articles, so the template serves no purpose that isn't already accomplished with these articles. On top of that, there is 'filler' in the template that just takes up space, but isn't directly related to the topic. --Andrew c 00:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - Thanks for the criticism. You're right. I edited it to read "Johannine Literature", the formal title for the books that all scholars use, even those who think John the Apostle didn't write them. That should resolve the POV issue. I'm not aware of any minimum number of pages where a template can be used to be considered "useful." I count 16. I also removed the "filler" content you refered to. The purpose of the template is to give a speedy overview of important aspects of John (with all his uncertain homosexuality and attributed writings) so that readers can know what info is available on wikipedia quickly. For example, the template shows readers his connection with John the Presbyter and the Apocryphon of John which are nearly impossible to know otherwise. Lastly, the template is a mere 6 hours old at this moment. It would be good to give the template time to evolve and improve before condemning it indefinitely. --Ephilei 02:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Strong keep as per the previous paragraph. --Ephilei 02:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking my suggestions to heart and making some changes, however I still feel that most of these links are already included either in the lead, the EL, or the existing templates on most of these articles, and therefore this template isn't that useful. But for it to be workable for me, the title would have to be renamed something like "Johannine Community" and the "names" section changed to "Figures" or "People associated with the community". Because, still glancing at the template, we are implying that John the Apostle was the same person as these other figures and that he wrote all 5 works.-Andrew c 15:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Names of John is a list of names traditionally attributed to John, whether they are accurate or not, they have still been attributed to him. As an editor new to John's area of WP, it took me hours and hours to find all these related articles, some just by luck. So maybe I'm an idiot, but maybe many readers also never find those articles because they don't spend hours and hours hear. I'm still not confident I've found everything. --Ephilei 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * About POV, inevitably one side of any argument will think it's biased against them even if it's perfect NPOV. A Christian might be angry that Jesus is listed in the Islamic prophets templates because it unfairly implies that Jesus was a Muslim. We must see past our own biases. Every scholar will agree that John should be in the same category as Johannine literature - it was named after him. And all 5 texts are Johannine literature. That's simply the definition of "Johannine" regardless of opinion. I see no bias. If you want to help, think of ways to make it NPOV instead of deleting altogether.


 * Keep - I found the template immediately useful when I noticed it had been added to an article on my watchlist, especially since readers of that article can go directly to the other listed articles without having to link first through John the Apostle or Johannine literature. Templates allow WP to collate various articles and present them to the reader in a sensible form other than a list.  There are enough articles on "John" to warrant the use of a template. -Acjelen 18:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename to Template:John the Apostle. I can't comment on accuracy but the name is way too generic.  &mdash;dgies tc 22:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Renaming it's going to cause a major POV battle--not everyone agrees that John the Apostle is John the Evangelist or any of the other titles. Irish♣Pearl 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon my naïvite but how about just "Biblical John"? &mdash;dgies tc 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Extrememly useful, (I was shocked when I found it existed and hadn't been used more) especially with all the merge debates going on. Now adding to other John articles where it will surely be used. Irish♣Pearl 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongest Keep - It a very useful. --SkyWalker 17:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - The template is very helpful and sorely needed. The content of the various articles can appropriately treat the matter of the identity of John (or the various Johns, depending upon one's view).  Even though the majority view (including my own)is dubious that they were one person, a very substantial group does see the various Johns as a single person.  I believe, Encylopedia Britannica addresses them in a single article. Mamalujo 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - As it is, it's sectarian POV (that there is one John who wrote all these books). I changed it to "Johns of the Bible" because that's what it is: multiple people called "John." I don't know if that's enough. It could be '"Johns" of the Bible' to indicate that John is likely not the real name of the people referenced (e.g., the anonymous author of John). Jonathan Tweet 18:02, 14 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 page.

Template:Ep

 * 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! 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Template does not scale. It will eventually break after many episodes are added, due to Mediawiki limitations. --63.80.194.19 05:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, if outcome is delete, also delete ^  demon [omg plz] 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This template DOES WORK PERFECTLY, but you came and tried to add shows other than LOST, which it is made for, to it. That's what screwed it up! It is perfectly fine now, and can be used freely amongst pages. Trust me, it DOES work as long as you don't go and mess it up by adding different shows. -- Silva  Storm  
 * I don't know what your problem is. You have deleted several of my comments in talk pages, which is clearly against Wikipedia policy.  You have also called me a bastard.   Restore my comments, and apologize.
 * My argument still stands. This template will not scale.  At best, it could only be used as a "subst" template, but that will also eventually break after a few more seasons of Lost.  BTW, I have no reason to "trust" someone who deletes my comments and calls me a bastard.--63.80.194.19 07:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wha? When did I call you specifically a bastard?! I only said that about people - in GENERAL - messing around with it, not you. Tell me exactly what is wrong with this template, it works perfectly fine from what I've seen as long as other shows aren't added. -- Silva  Storm  
 * You called me a bastard here: . You deleted one of my comments here: . Now back to the question, why should I trust you with anything when you are deleting my comments?  The template may work today, but it will stop working by season 4 or season 5.  Please see Template limits.--63.80.194.19 08:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm sorry if you took it as yourself being called a bastard, I just saw that the template had been messed up and then wrote that. I didn't call you it personally. I only deleted your comments because I got it working again and thought it was unnecessary to get rid of it if it was perfectly fine. Just think about it for a minute - you spend ages making a template suited to Wikipedia, and then another user comes along, changes it which causes it to break, and then complains about it, saying it should be deleted. Do you see what I mean? Now I think it is fine as it is, and will continue to work well through season 4 and 5. The only reason it broke is because it had way too many shows added - House and The Simpsons! If it just left dedicated to Lost, as was intended in the first place, it will not cause any problems and make things easier for users. Please let this be the end of the discussion, unless you have something new to add. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Ok, back to the discussion at hand. This template has several strikes against it:
 * Can potentially be called dozens or more times in an article. This very quickly increases the pre-expand include size, especially for a template of this size.
 * The template will minimally need changed once a week or so whenever a new episode name is announced. Every time the template changes, dozens or possibly hundreds of articles (depending on where this template is used) will need to be rebuilt from scratch.  In general, the Wikipedia community frowns upon these types of ever-changing templates, because they use a lot of CPU-cycles.
 * Since the template would be used on many pages, many many times, it will be a target for vandalism. This particular point could be addressed by using subst, or via protection, but I think that would defeat the point of the template?
 * And lastly, the template is called "ep" instead of "lostep" (or something else more specific). This caused some confusion for me, and that is why I tried adding some more shows.  If the community decides to keep this template, then I still think it should be renamed.
 * BTW, I mean no disrespect towards your hard work. I'll let the community decide. --63.80.194.19 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, SS didn't spend ages making this, the hard work was done at lostpedia.com and he just copied it over here.


 * Delete. And if it gets deleted, I'd like to see Silva fix the articles that use it so someone else doesn't have to clean up his mess.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to something more Lost-specific, such as Ep-Lost, that way other television shows can create similar templates. I like the idea of having this because it provides a way to normalize episode linking, which occurs very often between television articles.  A template like this makes even more sense because we are not allowed to create unnecessary disambiguation in episode article titles, so if something else comes along with the same name as an episode title, but more recognizable, we're going to have to change every single link to that episode.  Having one place where we can add and edit the links to an episode makes much more sense than doing a "What Links Here" search and manually changing every link.  In other words, in terms of flexibility this template is a very good idea. Jtrost (T | C | #) 14:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename. I don't know if I like the concept, but the name is wrong: it suggests that the template is more general than it is meant to be. Eugène van der Pijll 17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete due to template limits. Also, it's just as easy to type the title of the episode, rather than look up the code to make sure you're using the right number in the template. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors  ( talk ) 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - template was copied from the Lostpedia wiki, whose content is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5. One of the users there worked hard to create this and SilvaStorm has copied it here taking credit for the work on his user page.  I really see no problem with using something similar on this site, however the format of the documentation table and the syntax nearly identical.  Also, it doesn't make sense to name such a template just "ep" since Wikipedia is not constrained to just the topic of Lost. -- Jabrwocky7 00:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral Delete, although I must point out that I strongly disagree with the nom's points on this one. In fact, the only reason I think this should be deleted is because of its uselessness - it's much simpler to type out the information by hand, and given that, it makes little sense to maintain it on a weekly basis. I'm changing my vote to neutral because I realized that's a dumb reason to delete a template. Curtmack of the Asylum 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Are you people crazy?! Seriously, this is to make things much more easier for everyone. It is a perfectly fine template that I just modified to suit Wikipedia. I left it as "Ep" to make it easier to write, so unless you want to write "Lostep" instead, I have no problem. I have removed the credit from my page. I don't understand why people are so against it - anyone who knows an episodes actual name is bound to know the number...Please keep this, I strongly recommend it. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Delete per Jabrwocky. We can't just copy content from wikis not under the GFDL. And I don't think that this is the idea of templates. -Amarkov moo! 02:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It was written from scratch to suit Wikipedia, the Lostpedia template was only used as a guide! It would be broken if I hadn't changed a lot of it. -- Silva  Storm  
 * Delete: You did not write this from scratch. You cut and pasted it, and then you changed a few minor things to make a derivative work.  For example, look at the diff between the bottom section on wikipedia and lostpedia: wikipedia, lostpedia.  Are you claiming you came up with the exact examples, colors, and number of spaces between words as the original work on Lostpedia?--63.80.194.19 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a derivative work, and therefore a copyvio, from the copy from the Lostpedia wiki. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. If "anyone who knows an episodes actual name is bound to know the number", then they should figure out the episode's article name fairly easily. –Pomte 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're all mopheads, the lot of ya! Except for those guys who said keep. And you can hardly speak, 63.80.194.19, you don't even have an account. So go ahead and have a messier and less easy to use system when even the most unaware users may have trouble remembering episode titles. I say keep keep keep! Get over the fact that it is quite similar to the Loser...sorry, Lostpedia one. A template that is meant to help and make things easier is yet another piece of Wikipedia that gets slaughtered by sheepish users who just go with the crowd and are all caught up in the useless thing that seperates the two Wikis, this so-called 'Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs'. I don't understand it, so have fun undoing all the pages I used the template on. And if anyone sees this as vandalism, think again - I am merely trying to help, so don't bother. It's your own gosh-darn fault. --  Silva  Storm  
 * Silva, you should probably read through the WP:NPA policy before posting something like that again. Jabrwocky7 15:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the Assume Good Faith page. All users, including yourself, are trying to improve the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We didn't make it clear enough what the problem is. Copying something from Lostpedia like that is against the law. Breaking the law can not be justified here. Period. -Amarkov moo! 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and subst: something like titles shouldn't use templates inline text. It's just a bad idea. Now if it was ALWAYS subst, then it might be a better idea, but i doubt that will happen. Also, badly named, and apparently a GFDL violation ? --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete And this editor Silva is out of line with some of his comments to other editors here. Another example of one editor copying code from another without fully understanding what he's copying, or whether or not it is appropriate/needed here. --64.253.48.73 14:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete because I don't think this is a standardization issue. I think it adds needless server load.  If someone wants to run a bot to always subst this... maybe... but, I still don't see why doing it's so difficult to do the proper linking.  It's not like there are many style attributes that need standardizing (like for tables). gren グレン 16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Despite the copyvio issue, the appearance of the output from the template will not need to be changed in the future, and every update of the template will not change anything where it has already been used (Disclaimer: There may be a small number of changes such as a name change for a future episode but these can be made by hand, and there may be a page rename or something at a later date, but then we'd have a template for everything!) . mattbr30 23:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Copyvio. - grubber 20:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per copyvio, name of template, un-needed server strain, etc. I was bold and went ahead and subst'd all the instances of it. Apparently you can't just substitute the template...reverting my bot's edits... ^ demon [omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Copyvio from lostpedia (incompatible licence), also MediaWiki issues raised by others. Orderinchaos78 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't buy the copyvio argument for one minute - the titles themselves are fair use and not owned by lostwiki, and the coding is trivial. But the template itself is worse than useless IMO. --Random832 13:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Unnecessary but very useful. (Are you allowed to nominate something for deletion or vote if you don't have an account?)  --thedemonhog 22:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Copyvio due to Lostpedia's use of Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 license. Also agree w/the above regarding unecessary server load, and the fact that maintaining a lost-specific template on WP actually is more work than not having a template-- in another words this was designed for a Lost-specific wiki, and works efficiently only in that context.  The copyvio alone is sufficient for deletion though. --Santaduck 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyright violation - On http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Main_Page if you click licensing at the bottom left, you can see they are using the license CC Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 . This license specifies there must be attribution (which there is not), non-commercial (which is not wikipedia), and no derivative works, which will inevitably be violated.   &mdash;dgies tc 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - All mainspace transclusions have been substituted properly. Useless template that only adds ambiguity and makes editing difficult. Matthew 18:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The copied table of the template is functional (e.g., patent law), not creative (e.g., copyright), so copyright is not a problem. As far as whether it works, when I list, it brings up , just as the template indicated it would. Matthew might have a point (which is why my keep is weak), but I would rather see that discussed than a mistaken copyright issue. -- Jreferee 22:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, the documentation of the template was also copied from the other site (text was copied, table structure was copied, colors were copied, etc). The documentation is copyrighted on the original site.  --63.80.194.19 03:26, 16 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 page.