Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 July 9



Template:UsernameReviewNotice

 * 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! 05:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vague, less specific version of UsernameDiscussion  MBisanz  talk 16:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Thetrick (talk) 01:36, 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:HybridMapLink

 * 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)  08:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This template randomly (!) picks one of six sites to give a map link to. This does not seem useful, and should be replaced by a standard link to the "geohack" page using one of the geolinks templates. — NE2 12:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and my comments on WP:GEO. --Dschwen 16:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This random link farming is really confusing. Standard coordinates format is preferable. -- User:Docu
 * Delete. The syntax of this template seems very clunky...standard coordinates seems much simpler. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 22:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: To close this item: There remain about 330 uses of this template.
 * In order to clean this up, it appears that in most cases the template can just be removed as the article already includes coordinates in the infobox. These can be made to appear on the top right corner of the article, e.g. Savoonga_Airport fix needed.
 * If someone would close this thread and blank the template, I will fix the articles and then delete the template. -- User:Docu (July 20)
 * 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:SevenDirtyWords

 * 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   Maxim (talk)  16:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This template is redundant and unnecessary. It appears on only five article pages, four of which are words already in the template. The other is the main article dedicated to the comedy routine. The template doesn't provide a useful function, such as ease of navigation, since the other three words lead to a disambiguation page, and is hardly representative of Carlin's body of work. The template appears to exist just for its shock value. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. I don't know if it would be useful for a general George Carlin template? If there are enough articles to support it.  P G  Pirate  13:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Covered by the category Profanity. --Thetrick (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This was already covered under a previous call for deletion. Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_July_25.  These comments should be factored in with this vote. Behun (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The result of that review, which occurred nearly a year ago, was no consensus reached. I wasn't aware that there is a precedent for earlier comments from deletion reviews to be factored into a subsequent deletion review. This is a new nomination which should be determined on its own merits. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yes but the previous decision needs to be in consideration, especially on a page like this where we don't have alot of participation. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 06:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems a useless template. All the links are in the Carlin and SDW's articles, and these words aren't really linked in any other way, so a template on each page is not needed. No-one needs a template that links mother*cker and tits from f*ck, except giggling shool-boys - and even they know many more interesting curse words. An overall swear-word template might be intersting....Yobmod (talk) 14:39, 18 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:2D Political spectrum

 * 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   Maxim (talk)  16:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unsalvagable original research. Not used in any articles, and given its state, unusable in any articles. Also included in this nomination: Template:2D Political spectrum colored Skomorokh  02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note The other template is 2D Political spectrum colored -  P G Pirate  13:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: We may as well also bundle the equally bogus into this nomination. All three of them are chock full of OR and false comparisons. All three should be deleted. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Partial delete I say delete the first two as pure OR. I'm neutral on the third as it represents the conventional wisdom on the "spectrum", and could be used to explain the conventional view. --Thetrick (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The current version of represents libertarianism as closer to the center than conservatism is, and represents anarchism and communism as uncritically nearly identical. I don't think it's salvageable. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - nice idea and would be useful, if it were possible. However, such a template must always be mostly OR and inaccurate. hence they misinform readers more than they helps.Yobmod (talk) 14:42, 18 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:Vague phrase

 * 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; there were no objections to the deletion and the template is pretty much unused. GDonato (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-standard article cleanup template. 1 article use through a redirect, 1 talk page use. --Thetrick (talk) 01:11, 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.

Template:Jctint/concur, Template:Jctint/deleted

 * 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 withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk)  08:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion in Archieve 13 they talk about eliminate all the colors; especially cyan color of concurs, and gray colors for eliminate routes. The staffs felt is unneccessairly to insert colors just for route overlapping. Actually by deleting them from tables is just going to leave all the background white. We can delete them prior to the time we clear them all out. or delete routes people just have to write it on notes section say its former SR 33.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 03:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You guys; when you see TFD table is message because a color tempalte is nominate for TFD. You will just have to be patient, becuase it will be taken care of eventually. This will not process until at least a week. Things needs drastic changes there is not much I can do. I hope you all understand, and sorry for inconvienience.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus established to remove colors from junction tables. Each state project under WP:USRD is free to establish practices for that state's articles. There is no equivalent to WP:ELG for surface routes without exits or interchanges. The Michigan project is still using colors up until this one user started randomly removing them without consulting Michigan highway editors. This nomination is premature because the usage of color has not been universally eliminated. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Archive 13 From this I think I misunderstood. I see some people wants to eliminate all the colors. I just go by how many people say so to take off colors. Honestly; i don't care about the colors this much. Some people start it when I just switch to ELG format, then I have to do it to all of them. I have 2 users wants to trash noaccess, from WT:ELG.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 04:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ELG applies to exit lists. This template is used for junction lists. They are two different but similar lists used in highway articles. Exit lists are used for freeways which have interchanges. Junction lists are used for surface routes that have intersections. Exit lists list every exit along the freeway. Junction lists are limited to major intersections with other highways or important roads instead of every street driveway or other access point. They might look almost the same but they are not. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. These templates are widely in use across many hundreds of articles. There's no justifiable reason for removing the colors, since WP:ELG is for freeway exit lists. This template is for non-freeway junction lists. Two different applications need two different approaches. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no problem to keep; but you need to bring it up with User:TwinsMetsFan, since he made all those colors. It is now a little late since I went and start working. I only say we have to take out all noaccess, because its not a junction; everything else is.-- Freewayguy Call? Fish 04:58, 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.