Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 21



Template:Spoilscard

 * 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! 06:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This template is doing no good and goes nowhere but to an external link, and I see no useful use for it in the intended article.  S R X  14:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not useful Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:38, 23 August 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:Irish name unsourced

 * 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This talk page template serves no encyclopedic purpose. It essentially says, “Here’s some information that should not be used in the article.” It has been added to numerous article talk pages by a single purpose account, user, who has provided no constructive edits, much less any research or sources for the information. Each time, the template has been removed by an admin (myself three times, twenty-five times by others) and is currently orphaned. Template spamming should not be used as a substitute for productive dialogue. Thank you. — Satori Son 13:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gathering as-yet-unsourced information on talk pages is fine, if the intent is to get it sourced eventually, but there's no need to put a little rectangle around it. In any case, there's no need to use template space for something used by ony one account. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; per nom ww2censor (talk) 16:48, 28 August 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:SI acceptable units

 * 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 after substitution. — Satori Son 11:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Only transcluded in a single article with no other useful links. Recommend subst and delete. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 21 August 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:Australia-plant-stub

 * 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 Nomination withdrawn --Moondyne 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In this way, stub template can be created for each and every country. It is pointless and infinite job. It is better to mark plant as stub by its taxonomy, not by its country of origin. Also a particual plant species can be found in different countries, thus marking a particular species with a particular country is inappropriate. The template is IMO unencyclopedic and violation of WP:NPOV.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. If it gets deleted you'll have to upmerge 900 plant stubs to Category:Australia stubs, which is already plenty large enough. Hesperian 06:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, that's right, but if you keep this template, you have to create similar templates for all the nations listed in List of countries.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I? Who says? Hesperian 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, all of the above arguments are arguments for the deletion of Category:Flora of Australia. Crikey, if we allowed it, categories would be created for each and every country! It is a pointless and infinite job. It is better to categorise by taxonomy. Also a particular plant species can be found in different countries, thus categorising a particular species with a particular country is inappropriate. The category is therefore unencyclopedic and a violation of NPOV. Hesperian 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But wait just a second! If we stubify by taxonomy, a stub can be created for each and every taxon. It is a pointless and infinite job! It is better to stubify by country, because there are fewer of them. Hesperian 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Etcetera. Hesperian 06:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawing nom per the reasonings given above. However I must say if this template stays, templates for other countries also be created to avoid systematic bias.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * SIGH of relief - thank you to both editors to resolve the issue - if only other Xfd/s were so simple SatuSuro 08:38, 21 August 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.