Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 2



Template:Operations of the Iraq war

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete, see also the discussion at Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_5 - Nabla (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Of little encyclopedic value. Most of the operations redirect to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War. If the attempt was to list them, then it is redundant to List of coalition military operations of the Iraq War — TheFE ARgod  (Ч) 18:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * also: Template:Operations of the Iraq war: 2007, Template:2003 Operations, Template:2004 Operations, Template:2005 Operations, Template:2006 Operations, Template:Operations of the Iraq war: 2008 -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with deleting these templates, furthermore it appears that TheFEARgod is only seeking revenge on user langloisrg for vandalizing his user page.--Kumioko (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all (and please tag all of the other templates): The templates do not help navigation (too bulky and cluttered), are based on arbitrary cutoff points (2007, 2008) which military operations do not follow, and contain mostly links redirects. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Black Falcon; if we were to keep such a template, it would be better to turn it into a campaign box, similar to Template:Campaignbox North Sea 1914-1918, listing only the significant battles that merit individual articles. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * we already have that: Template:Campaignbox Iraq War battles-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but revise. First I rarely make edits to Iraq operations because these articles seem to attract trolling and frequeently cause POV debates but since it seems that the intention here is to eliminate Iraq operations and associated templates deemed Non-notewothy I have a question and a comment. My question is, what makes a "Named military operation" noteworthy and what standard if any has been set on wikipedia to determine which ones are noteworthy and which ones aren't. Just because these operations are stubs doesn't mean the info doesn't exist and that they are not noteworthy.  I personally don't track them all but I can see that there are hundreds of them so how are we to know which ones are noteworthy and which ones are not. My comment is, if you look at the Military operations category for the Iraq War you will see a lot of operations that appear to meet this criteria. In fact I only see a few that seem to have much info at all. So you may want to review them for a well. Just my comments on that.--Kumioko (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's massive and is simply a hash-up of Template:2003 Operations, Template:2004 Operations, Template:2005 Operations, Template:2006 Operations, Template:Operations of the Iraq war: 2007, and Template:Operations of the Iraq war: 2008. It would be tough to make the judgement call on which battles were significant and which were not, especially for the more recent ones (its hard to see the long-term effects of so recent an event). Better to leave the smaller ones and let the user navigate from there. ''' bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought about it this way but I agree, its hard to determine the notibility of an operation that just happened. Especially in the military the details aren;t immediately released.--Kumioko (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: Templates for deletion/Log/2008 April 5 -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 12:18, 5 April 2008 (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:7th Heaven

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Doug.(talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Was TfDed once already (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1) but was procedurally kept per the arbcom injunction. Since TTN won't come back in the foreseeable future, I'll try to finish this for him. His words were "This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them." I agree. – sgeureka t•c 14:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, without prejudice to recreation if adequate (appropriate) material related to 7th Heaven is recreated in the future. At present, the template does not provide navigational utility beyond the content of the article itself. Black Falcon (Talk) 22:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Black Falcon. Parsecboy (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as long as series continues to only have three articles. If/when appropriate season pages are made, no prejudice again recreation then. Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2008 (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:Yin Yang Yo!

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was TfDed once already (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1) but was procedurally kept per the arbcom injunction. Since TTN won't come back in the foreseeable future, I'll try to finish this for him. His words were "This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them." I agree. – sgeureka t•c 14:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely unnecessary for a series with only two articles, and I don't think external links generally belong in a template. Collectonian (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2008 (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:Boy Meets World

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was TfDed once already (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1) but was procedurally kept per the arbcom injunction. Since TTN won't come back in the foreseeable future, I'll try to finish this for him. His words were "This is a useless navigational tool at this point. The main article links to both of them." I agree. – sgeureka t•c 14:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – in its current form (without the now-redirected auxiliary character articles), this template does not have much utility. Grace notes T § 03:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unnecessary and excessive with only three articles. Better handled with see also's in the two lists. Collectonian (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2008 (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:FairlyOddParentsEpisodeModel

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Was TfDed once already (Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_1) but was procedurally kept per the arbcom injunction. Since TTN won't come back in the foreseeable future, I'll try to finish this for him. His words were "This is a pointless template that serves no purpose." The template is orphaned and the TFOP episodes won't be revived anytime soon. – sgeureka t•c 14:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Parsecboy (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and better and more appropriately covered by WikiProject Television/How to write an episode article. Collectonian (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Copy/pasting articles like this is a bad idea. --Phirazo 17:48, 7 April 2008 (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:ProseTimeline

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I advocate that self references should only be be added to articles where absolutely necessary. This template goes well beyond that line, by referring to an essay, rather than a guideline or policy. Talk pages and Todo lists are far better places to air this kind of concern. Those who read or mirror the article don't need to see this cleanup request. I have no argument with the essay or the benefit of this kind of cleanup. I just think that editors should not request improvements to prose style in article namespace. (The earlier deletion nomination did not raise this issue.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous TfD is at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 31, under Template:Proseline.--Phirazo 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd rather make Proseline a policy/guideline than delete this template (keep). —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand the nom, the problem is that this is used on the face of articles rather than their talk pages. The easiest solution it seems would be to update the template's documentation to indicate that it should only be on talk pages, and get a bot to move all current transclusions. Although, in fact, this template is a prime example of "". Splash - tk 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am pleased that the Hrothulf brought this case up here instead of deleting it himself using WP:IAR. I had a discussion with another Wikipedian (in fact, an admin) about a related matter just a few days ago. What he made me understand was that adding these templates is just like adding a sticky note beside a sink full of dirty dishes saying, "The dishes need to be done." It is obvious from the sight of the sink that the dishes need to be done, and it is obvious from the sight of the a problem in the article that it needs to be addressed. The sticky notes do not clean the dishes; the templates do not clean the articles. However, I have often felt I have a bias against one way in favor of the other way which probably explains why I would suggest rewording the template, if that could be an acceptable solution. The effect of "The dishes need to be done." templates is far reaching including nearby territories such as Template:Copyedit to far away lands such as Template:Fact[citation needed]. I like Spash's idea of moving the particular template in question to the talk page. From the OP's objection, it seems that if Proseline was elevated to a policy/guideline status, the problem would be, at least partially, solved. This could lead to an unnecessary rally to elevate Proseline to policy status, something bordering, if not breaching, WP:Instruction creep. I have not made up my mind which way I want to vote yet. I would encourage others to take a step back and look at the big picture before voting. Thank you for reading. Kushal 21:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The words 'prose' and 'timeline' and opposites. Martarius (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The problem this template attempts to point out is a timeline that wants to be prose. The essay listed in the nomination Proseline, has a few examples. --Phirazo 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I tag articles with this to let editors know that an improvement is needed with the prose style. I think it coms in handy more often than not. Happyme22 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better if this was added to the talk page rather than the article itself. It would be even better if you'd spend a few minutes making some inroads into the problem yourself (see the 'tagging dirty dishes' analogy just above). Splash - tk 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Change the wording to mirror prose's, and/or make it a redirect. They are basically the same templates in functionality, if not exact intent. --Izno (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Cleanup templates have traditionally gone in mainspace as a warning to readers that the content isn't up to Wikipedia's standards. This template sees fairly wide usage, and while the problem isn't as serious as POV, it is still a legitimate one.  This style of writing is somewhat unique to Wikipedia, and is a symptom of recentism.  This sort of problem is hard enough to fix that sofixit isn't a good reason to delete this template. --Phirazo 03:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominators comment. I see the template used in only a couple of hundred articles.  However, Happyme22 has found it useful.  Has it been an effective encouragement to editors to clean up articles, so that it could quickly be removed again?  I guess I have been on Wikipedia longer than I thought, because cleanup templates in article namespace don't seem too traditional to me.  I can remember (2006) when self-reference templates in articles were generally subtle, like (stub and expand-section), or for the most egregious editorial problems, such as disputed and NPOV.  I think it is a sad day when there are article space templates for things (be they policy or not) that are just good practice.  I seem to be in a small minority, though I would support the suggestion of a couple of commenters to make it a talk page template instead of an article one. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hroðulf, sometime in late 2005 or 2006 (date not accurate), there was a surge in using spoiler warning. I do not see any of those now. Could you find out why? Thanks. Kushal 15:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Here are two links about the spoiler warning tag Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_8 and Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14. Kushal 19:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep proseline is a serious problem in this project, and this template redirects users to an easy to understand essay that should help solve the problem. Marcus Taylor (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Marcus Taylor. Aaron Bowen (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2008 (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:Infobox Composer

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Unused template, created in December. Propose deletion for the same reasons as a previous similar infobox was deleted. — RobertG ♬ talk 06:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 18:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2008 (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:Infobox Ship

 * 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Superceded; all articles using it have been upgraded with Infobox Ship Begin/doc. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships. —WWoods (talk) 06:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Has been superceded and is now obsolete. Woody (talk) 09:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No longer needed since the new template scheme is more flexible than this deprecated template. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Bellhalla.  H aus  Talk   11:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just tidying up. J Ѧ ρ 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and comments. --Brad (talk) 03:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom - obsolete template that should be eliminated to prevent confusion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:06, 7 April 2008 (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.