Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 August 7



Unit display 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 speedy delete per prior consensus Plastikspork (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)



None of these templates are used in the main space nor employed in any other useful fashion. They are all redundant to convert without anything close to 's functionality. Many of them are hardcoded instances and those which are not might as well be. Hence they meet criterion T3 for speedy deletion. They can all be deleted as the other Unit display templates have been.


 * Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 28
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 16
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 16
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 16
 * Templates for deletion/Log/2007 November 16

J IM ptalk·cont 21:04, 7 August 2009 (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:Forest Whitaker

 * 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 Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Films-by-director templates are acceptable, but I don't think they are when said director only has three films to their credit. This is far too small of a template to be useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough articles (yet) to justify a nav template. Can always be recreated if/when he's got more. --RL0919 (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Disagree, I think it remains a useful navigational aid to remind readers once they've reached the end of the article. It also has much potential for expansion to include Whitaker's other (i.e. acting) projects. Skomorokh  15:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not enough articles to warrant this template. Acting credits should not be included. Garion96 (talk) 15:54, 15 August 2009 (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:United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal

 * 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. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This template is slanted towards recent events. The pages of MPs this is intended for will gain little benefit from such a detailed navigation bar (to all other MPs involved) when a link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal in the body of the article would be more appropriate, sufficient and as far as I can see has already been done. Ash (talk) 06:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: very notable political event in the United Kingdom which has recieved reels of media coverage and much political debate in the UK. Useful to have a template specifically on the topic to link the relevent articles together in an ordered and compact manner. IMO the objection of "recentism" doesn't stand up very well, since this could apply to the Template:2008 economic crisis too or basically any event which has happened in recent times. In fact it seems to be a misreading of the guideline on recentism, which would apply, for an instance; if an article on the history of Austria had ten paragraphs for the time period after 1950, but only three paragraphs for the entire history before that. Rather than topics which are specifically about contemporary events. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: from WP:RECENT: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists." Agree with the reasoning of Yorkshirian above. Beganlocal (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not the only issue in the nomination, the fact that the template is made irrelevant as all articles that might include this template already link to United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal should be considered.—Ash (talk) 10:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:RECENT is about articles, not templates.  Having an article on a notable, recent topic is appropriate and correct.  And we have one: United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal, to say nothing of List of expenses claims in the United Kingdom Parliamentary expenses scandal.  But to have a template on it is silly.  Templates are supposed to be navigational aides between all pages about a similar topic, not lists of people who happen to share some minor attribute.  We have a List of people who died by hanging, but not a template to navigate between the various such people, and we don't need one, for the same reason.  -- simxp (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: a list of people who died by hanging would be in unrelated cirumstances. This is a specific case in politics and the media, where a group of people; British politicans are involved in a major expenses scandal. It isn't a list of everybody who was ever implicated in a scandal. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Alright, so pick another example with a specific circumstance -- the list & category of people who died in the titanic, say. They all share that attribute, so having a category and a list is appropriate.  But they also have in common that, with few exceptions, they're not on Wikipedia purely because they died in the Titanic; that wouldn't be enough to make them notable.  So any templates they have are about whatever makes them notable.  E.g. Sir Duff-Cordon in on WP because he was a baronet, so has that template; he also happened to be a fencer, but he doesn't have a template for that to navigate between all the people on WP who happened to like fencing, because that would be silly; that's not what they're notable for.  The fencing template (if there is one) is for people who are notable because they like fencing.  Similarly, the politicians here aren't notable because they were implicated in some scandal, they're notable because they're MPs; hence delete. -- simxp (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Having this at the bottom of all these politician articles is completely unsuitable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - A link the scandal page is sufficient. As said above, to have this template on all these article is incorrect. Garion96 (talk) 13:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep in modified form. This is a bit broad at the moment: "implicated" is very vague (if we include local newspapers, "implicated" means almost all MPs). I think the template should become more narrowly defined if it's to be useful. I fully support this template if it is just MPs who resigned or are standing down next election due to the expenses crisis. I'd also support it if "implicated" had some firm criteria. I'd like to suggest MPs overclaiming and paying back more than £1,000 (29 MPs) or £10,000 (10 MPs) catches the most interesting cases. I don't accept the recentism argument - this is likely to have political consequences for years to come. Nor do I accept the "there's a link in the body of the text" argument, as that applies to almost every template I can think of. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A criterion of MPS resigning due to the expenses crises would not be well-defined: hundreds of MPs have said they're standing down at the next election, and in most, the expenses crisis will have played a large factor; no-one knows how large in each case. Using MPs who've payed back more than £X would be an incredibly unfair criterion:  It would penalise those who did decide to pay it back over those who stuck to their "I didn't break the law" guns and decided to keep it.  Which is not what we want.  I don't think there's any set of criteria that would be both fair and well-defined, whilst also not including pretty much every MP there is.  And no, "which ones the Telegraph decided to run with" is not a fair criterion.  NPOV != Telegraph's POV.  -- simxp (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There's no clear definition of who has been "implicated" (who the newspapers choose to highlight is as much about what headlines grab the most attention as anything else and some of the implications have been silly, such as the lambasting of one MP for claiming for accommodation in his constituency when it's very rural and has many islands with limited ferries so when touring it it's not possible to nip back to the constituency home at night) and it's hard to objectively assess every MP standing down as to whether it's because of expenses (some were likely to retire anyway). This is the sort of thing best handled by an article not by a template. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Would this be appropriate on Wikipedia in 100 years time? No, it would be massive undue weight towards a particular event in a person's life. Article link suffices. Skomorokh  15:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Timrollpickering and Skomorokh. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. "Implicated" is far too subjective, and the template places far too much weight on a recent single event. It is sufficient that any related articles contain a link to the primary subject. PC78 (talk) 11:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. The article about the scandal, which is linked to for all those members involved, is enough. Bnynms (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2009 (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.