Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 14



Template:Shared IP Templates

 * 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 discussion was Keep, per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy gabs adds 17:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shared IP templates are very useful if not an essential communications staple when dealing with shared IPs, but do we really need all these ones specific to network type? Do we really need SharedIPEDU, ISP, MobileIP, SharedIP US military, SharedIPCERT, SharedIPPublic, SingNet, and AberWebcacheIPAddress? I'll admit that kind of like the little school house on the school IP template, but personal preference must take a back seat here since there's IPs all over Wikipedia with the generic template instead of network specific ones, making the site non-uniform, there's talk pages where people are inserting type specific templates on pages, yet failing to remove the generic ones already in place, and we're kind of being cliquish and outing certain types of people and organizations with the school and Military templates. It's like saying "okay everybody, this IP belongs to a school, don't trust 'em," and that not only gives the vandals too much glory, but it may offend some would-be constructive editors. It's also probably confusing to the newbies. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of different opinions expressed here, but I'm sure that most people will agree that some of these should be deleted. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Useful when assessing IPs for blocks as well as when evaluating their edits (especially ). - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep SharedIPEDU is quite useful for the above reason. Furthermore, both this and the SharedIPPublic template serve to let a reviewing admin know that users can change within a few minutes, or moreover, cycle between constructive and vandalistic edits within a few minutes or hours. I've never had the chance to use SingNet or AberWebcacheIPAddress, but I'm sure there's use for them. Furthermore, the SharedIPEDU and SharedIP US military tells vandals and potential vandals effectively that "we've got your number"- while you're editing anonymously here, we can still tell where you are. While I'm not a big fan of enforcing policy through fear, my observation of the occasional attempt to keep removing this template tells me it's quite effective. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, except replace SharedIPCERT with SharedIPEDU, as it doesn't really provide anything extra, and I think we can subst AberWebcacheIPAddress on the four IP talk pages it's intended for. The others provide useful information to blocking admins regarding the type and duration of block, block log messages, protections, extent of vandalism and collateral, etc as well as for people adding warnings and other messages to the talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per arguments above, and in my experience sharedIPEDU is particularly useful in warning vandals. DuncanHill (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we might be misreading PCHS here. He's saying shared IP templates ARE useful but that we don't need a proliferation of them.  PCHS, you may want to design a new one that meets the requirements and then come here to get consensus to subsume the others. Protonk (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Mostly immensely useful - especially IPEDU - and also, the AIV bots use them to flag certain accounts. It's possible that a few of them could be usefully merged, though. Black Kite 02:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep especially the EDU one. -Djsasso (talk) 02:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. We've actually been working on expanded docs for these templates at Template talk:ISP, to make it more clear on which is supposed to be used in which context. However, it might also be useful to make one "master" template, and then control the messaging with internal arguments. But in that case, let's first come up with a more centralized template, before talking about deleting the older ones. --Elonka 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree especially with the last part of Mendaliv's comment. I've found the IPEDU template much more effective than the standard warning templates in stopping ongoing school vandalism. Once the kids realize that we know where they are, they tend to think twice about continuing. Deor (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Elonka. --Call me Bubba (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep the concept, but look for merge opportunities ++Lar: t/c 04:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Very useful. I merged a few of them a while ago (12, 18 months ago IIRC) and maybe we can combine a few more. But that needs to be done on a case by case basis, ensuring that not only are the replacement templates working properly, but that they keep the host info too. -- Avi (talk) 05:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I use SharedIPEDU quite frequently and find the other more generic notices useful as well. Per Elonka, I don't see a reason or need for these to be deleted unless/until a master template is created. Also, these notices have nothing to do with giving vandals glory or branding an IP as untrustworthy. Whether or not an IP is shared, and to what extent it is shared, factors into the type and duration of a block. - auburn pilot   talk  06:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Avi and Rjd. Glass  Cobra  10:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There may be more merge opportunities, but it's clear they serve a purpose that is useful to encyclopedia building and should not be deleted entirely. - Mgm|(talk) 11:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Black Kite. Willking1979 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all but SingNet AberWebcacheIPAddress� and SharedIPCERT --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely keep. As Avraham said, perhaps we can merge a couple of them to reduce the population somewhat, but the school template is VERY helpful--and frankly, part of the reason it IS helpful is that it lets me know it's a school and thus the 31-hour/55-hour block would be preferable to the 24/48 hour variety. I would rather not lose the military one either, if only because I'd like to know when I could potentially be ticking off a government agency. I have less of an opinion on the others, but nevertheless I agree with the arguments above saying they should be kept. GJC 13:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Heck, I would even say to add any others which are applicable as new templates. Collect (talk) 17:39, 15 December 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:Fairly OddParents Episode

 * 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 discussion was Delete. All instanses were replaced by Nicktoon Episode with parameter "show=The Fairly OddParents". Since all the transclusions are in redirects, the class rating of templates has to be updated or the templates to be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)



This template is pointless. It's only used on the talk pages of redirects given that all Fairly OddParents episodes have been redirected. Regardless of its lack of use, it's redundant to Nicktoon Episode anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - redundant, and not used in any helpful way. Terraxos (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although a number of the show's episodes actually do have their own article (see List of The Fairly OddParents episodes), I agree that Nicktoon Episode obviously does an indentical job so there's really no need for this to be used. It's not as if Fairly OddParents is any more notable than Nick's other shows. Bettia   (rawr!)  11:35, 16 December 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:Gottschalks history

 * 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 discussion was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A little too small for a template. Lamonts and Harris are notable, but Leask and Brock don't seem to be at all, as the only Books/News hits were for the Gottschalks merger. This also falls one short of my own "rule of five" (in my opinion, a template should have five primary blue links or more). Number of links aside, it doesn't really serve a purpose as neither Leask nor Brock were notable stores and will very likely never have articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - insufficient content for a navigational template. Terraxos (talk) 17:45, 15 December 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.

Sports Templates

 * 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 discussion was Keep. Happy‑melon 22:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Columbus Crew are the only team who has a MLS championship Template and Sport Club Internacional is the only team who has a Copa Sudamericana template. No other team who has been champions in both competitions have a template, why should those teams have one. The same goes to the Atlanta Falcons, i think only the teams who won the Super Bowl should have a championship template. –  Blu  e  Red  – 04:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Squad templates are common throughout wikipedia. The mear fact that this is the first MLS Cup 2008 squad with a template is irrelevant. Others will follow and someone can build lists for previous MLS Cup. Since the current squad list is always evolving the Columbus Crew MLS Cup 2008 squad list will be available for future reference. - Late1 (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep As I feel that nominating 3 different sports templates that are not about the same sports for deletion does not make sense as each of them are covered by different Wikipedia Sport Projects and they have their own standards for these templates. I also think you should discuss it with their respective projects to see what type of consensus you came can up with. If they don't think they should be existing then renominate em separately and you will have them backing ya for a speedy deletion (or a fairly fast delete discussion). Also my keep vote kinda goes as per above, I am sure they're would be other MLS squad templates coming soon.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 08:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree that only Super Bowl or national champion teams should have templates. ~ Richmond 96  t  •  c   01:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Template:Columbus Crew MLS Cup 2008 squad Is a National Champion Template, while the other 2 Template:1998 Atlanta Falcons NFC Championship and Template:Sport Club Internacional 2008 Copa Sudamericana squad is not and I would agree with you there, however the problem is the differences of all 3 templates listed, in fact I can come up with reasons for 2 of the templates for deletion but the Colmbus Crew MLS Template should stay as per my keep vote. I would like to see Template:1998 Atlanta Falcons NFC Championship (non NFL Champion) and Template:Sport Club Internacional 2008 Copa Sudamericana squad (Which does not imply that 2008 Copa Sudamericana championship (In Soccer They're so many champion titles it hard to tell which one is the big one so it goes down to what I mentioned Earlier about Discussion with the projects in charge of that) anywhere on Sport Club Internacional anywhere and is redundant to Template:Sport Club Internacional squad) relisted as separate discussions.  Sawblade05  (talk to me undefined my wiki life) 11:25, 25 December 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:WikiProjectTheFairlyOddParents

 * 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 discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Template for a dead wikiproject that never really got started. Was only transcluded on one article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless or until project gets back going. – Alex43223T 05:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The (small and dead) wikiproject is now a taskforce and part of WP Nickelodeon, so WikiProject Nickelodeon can be used instead now. – sgeureka t•c 10:36, 23 December 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.