Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 7



Template:Stargate Atlantis Major Cast

 * 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! 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at many popular franchises, and none have templates listing all their actors separately, also not Atlantis 's sister show Stargate SG-1. Is this template really needed? – sgeureka t•c 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 02:43, 10 July 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:Fair tone

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Redundant with other NPOV templates. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to edit in this comment at the beginning because I feel it's important. there seems to be a policy issue here that goes well beyond the keeping or deleting of a single template.  several editors on the delete side seem to be arguing that wp:NPOV is superfluous and that the notion of a sensitive approach to real-world debates is subjective and (thus) irrelevant.  I couldn't disagree more - I see this as one of the central aspects of NPOV, and its subjectivity is meaningful and useful because it requires that editors work to achieve consensus.  but as I said, I think this goes well beyond the discussion of a template.  I'm open to suggestions about  the proper venue for this debate - ideas?  -- Ludwigs 2  18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. this template is not redundant in the least. tone in an article is a particular source of bias, one noted directly in policy at wp:NPOV.  the only other template that comes close to covering this issue is template:tone, which is specifically a style cleanup template intended for unprofessional or badly written entries.  in fact, since Science Apologist himself failed to point out which template(s) he feels this is redundant with, I see no merits for this request whatsoever.  -- Ludwigs 2  19:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is an important difference between policy cleanup and style cleanup, and this is core policy's heading, so a good level of detail. FWIW, the correct section link is used in the template; the above comment has a lowercase f. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There are numerous other templates that work better. "Fair tone" is so subjective, I'd subjectively object to it's being used anywhere.  POV templates work better, and get away from the use of "tone" which depends on so many psychological analyses, it would be difficult to use it correctly.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 22:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redundant with NPOV tag (which covers the rather arbitary "NPOV#fairness of tone"). Shot info (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete The template reads "This section appears to have an insensitive or unfair tone." - Sorry, but we don't need to be sensitive. Sensitive is generally less NPOV rather than more so. For example, regarding the deaths of notable people we say "so and so died" and don't say "so and so passed away." The notion that insensitivity is somehow POV is at best problematic. And if the template is modified to simply say ""This section appears to have an unfair tone" we then have all the problems brought up by SA, OM and Si even more so. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Since tone is a minor clause of NPOV, Template:NPOV is all that's necessary. This template does not add value, but confusion. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per previous. NPOV is succinct and more neutral, this one, by introducing 'fair' raises concern over the opinion of one who would use the template. Aslo redundant. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't about sensitivity, it's about NPOV, reliable sources and verifiability. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This template serves no purpose. If Ludwigs wants to discuss "fair tone", a concept that is inherently subjective, WP:UNDUE might be the place.  71.242.27.87 (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not in line with our current policies, specifically WP:NPOV. --- RockMFR 04:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant with tone, except for introducing the issue of "fairness", which is only going to be used for arguing that we should be "fair" to fringe views by removing all the negative things that have been said about them. Not good at all, as it can used to remove all the criticism from mainstream science. The NPOV policy has already been changed from "Fairness of tone" to "Tone" as a result of the creation of this template (and I hope that it remains that way). Encyclopedias should have accurate articles, not "fair" articles (except for the BLP exceptions). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:54, 10 July 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:VERITAS Infobox

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  19:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

1-off template I have subst. Unused. --Thetrick (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Template can only be used in one article, and it is already subst'd into that article. No changes to this template would affect anything; No reason for this template to exist. Delete. iced kola(Mmm...) 00:57, 8 July 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:Steve Martin

 * 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! 05:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The precedent is to avoid actor templates since films can have multiple actors. Thus, the footer of any film article would be overloaded with such templates. See similar precedent set here: Templates for deletion/Log/2007 April 11. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom and per precendent. Actors shouldn't have templates for every role (noteworthy, or not) they've done.  Lugnuts  (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per prior review and precedent. This is what filmographies are for and these sort of templates for one work category are redundant. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep on account of his other works (albums, books, etc.) included in this template, with the strict provision that the template not be used in any of the film articles. I'm familiar with the precedent, and it only covers those templates which are just filmographies. PC78 (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. PC78's suggestion is problematic.  The template is currently transcluded onto every one of Martin's movies.  Taking it off each of those while leaving the template intact is likely to be hard to achieve and maintain.  Now multiply this by every single actor who has ever produced a book or record.  It's a recipe for clutter and conflict.  Extend the precedent.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How about splitting the discography and bibliography sections into seperate templates, then? PC78 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he's particularly notable as an author or recording artist. It's all a product of his fame as an actor.  And a template like that would still be bait for people to put the movies back in.  I'm less sure of my answer here, though, and would appreciate input from others.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * comment what about adding a variable to display which section is relevant to the article ie displays only the films  displays every thing besides the films.   Gnangarra 10:43, 11 July 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:VA US Route

 * 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. Non-admin close. Because this template has superceded by Template:VA Route, and the transclusions in said completion lists have been eliminated in its favor (making a lot of redlinks turn bright and blue), this template may now safely be deleted. The fact that no new pages are using this template after more than a year, is ample proof of the fact that it is no longer needed.Debresser (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template to create wikilinks to US routes in Virginia. Old, 2 uses in talk archive pages. --Thetrick (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 01:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's used in two completion lists, which are used to make sure that all redirects are created. --NE2 12:01, 13 July 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:Prueba wikispain

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Design test, finally discarded, unused. Superseded by Spain topics. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Nick C (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - also per nom. iced kola(Mmm...) 01:00, 8 July 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:CompromisedWebHostVandal

 * 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. Note also that the IP is personal information. If someone gets hold of it, they can find out many aspects of one's personal life quite easily. PeterSymonds (talk)  19:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Obsolete template counter to policy, we don't out IP addresses in block templates, nor do checkusers fish and block non-abusive accounts using tor/op, they leave it to the hardblocked open proxy IP to prevent the abuse, also its unused in the current Test/UTM series.  MBisanz  talk 09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though the IP is not exactly "personal" information of the user, it seems unwise to encourage posting it widely.  It could be bad for the privacy of the user, the website, and future users of that IP.  JackSchmidt (talk) 19:20, 7 July 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:FC Barcelona Squad 2007-2008 season

 * 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. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Unneeded template. Having templates like these for every team for every season woukd be overkill. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  10:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not needed. - Nick C (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Pointless having squad templates for every season. --Jimbo[online] 20:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, can't have this. Punkmorten (talk) 07:53, 15 July 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:2007 All-Australians

 * 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! 06:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A more widely used version is in use — Allied45 (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect-- S R X -- Latino Heat  02:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Gnangarra 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary duplication per nom AFL-Cool (talk) 09:04, 7 July 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:2007 All-australians

 * 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! 07:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A more widely used version is in use — Allied45 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect-- S R X -- Latino Heat  02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * delete replace with Template:2007 All-Australians, though maybe a rename to All Australian, Australian Rules Football for absolute clarity. Gnangarra 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Probably you mean, replace with Template:2007 All-Australian Team (rather than Template:2007 All-Australians) per nom, JackSchmidt (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment nope I said what I meant, I actually dont like the formatting of that one but its not been listed here I prefer the Template:2007 All-Australians format. Gnangarra 10:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary duplication per nom AFL-Cool (talk) 09:04, 7 July 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:Island 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under WP:CSD per authorial request herein and lack of other substantial edits in history. GRBerry 04:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

All articles merged into central article Island (novel series), so template is no longer required. Cmprince (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete-per nom.-- S R X -- Latino Heat  02:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been away, so I missed this. Sorry I wasn't on time.  Since I missed the merge, and created this template, go ahead, delete it. -- Meldshal42   (talk to me)  19:57, 9 July 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.