Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 June 2



Template:NJTransit-Main-Bergen-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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)



Unused by any article, as it is redundant to Template:NJTransit-Bergen-infobox and Template:NJTransit-Main-infobox (and Template:Port Jervis -infobox) which are more specific to each individual line, which have separate articles. Long story short, there is no combined infobox within which this template would be used.oknazevad (talk) 18:16, 2 June 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:2009 AL Wild Card standings

 * 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. JPG-GR (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)



Nominating per discussion at WT:MLB. There seems to be a pervasive attitude that this isn't necessary; this is not a sports page. If readers have an overwhelming desire to see who won the wild card in a particular year, the Major League Baseball season pages will tell them, because this information is included in the divisional standings. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm pretty sure wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There are WC standings every year, this one is no more important than the others, none of which have such a template.  black ngold29  22:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed another one exists - Template:2007 AL Wild Card standings... should that be thrown in with this discussion? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 00:06, 4 June 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:CSRT-Yes

 * 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 ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)



Template text is transcluded into the body of text of multiple articles. As such it violates Template_namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article.".

There seems no trace of the discussion mentioned in the template's documentation (I had left notes at WT:WikiProject Terrorism, User talk:Sherurcij and User talk:Ms2ger). -- User:Docu 10:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC), updated 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, Template was created, as noted, at the behest of Wikiproject:Terrorism, and both Wikiproject:Templates and Wikipedia Talk:Templates approved of its creation as "outside the normal use of templates, but necessary and justified" in the case of 900 biographical articles all conveying "slightly different" summaries of the CSRT process. One user wrote the bulk of the summaries, and then somebody would point out his POV language, and change it on one detainee. But that didn't change it across the other 900 detainee articles -- then somebody else would decide that it should include a comparison to Nuremberg against consensus, and again, change it on one detainee. So to solidify and cooperatively work towards a single cohesive block of text, this template was created. You can find some traces of the conversation that preceded its creation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Templates/Archive_1, where you'll see "this seems exactly what a template is for: i.e. to standardise across multiple articles and make the content easily changable", as well as some of the work in refining the prose at WikiProject Terrorism/Guantanamo, and more double-checking on its ability to meet the standards of Ignore all rules, at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace where the administrator says "I would support this - it's already done at List of animals displaying homosexual behavior. The repeated text should be in the template namespace so it can be used by mirrors and forks - the database dump used by Wikipedia mirrors contains the template namespace. There should also be copious HTML comments before the template, to let other editors know what to do if they want to edit the repeated text.". There were zero objections to its creation, and it's survived more than a year across hundreds of articles about Guantanamo detainees' legal proceedings unchallenged (though frequently refined). In the future, further research and following the links already provided would be a nice touch, before leaping to TfD. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Because a couple WikiProjects agreed to it and it's been around for a year is all fine and well - but that doesn't refute it being against policy. JPG-GR (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignore all rules says This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored. -- unless you can show that WP is actually served by deleting things in a stoic fashion without common sense...the templates stand of their own merit. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 16:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Citing WP:IAR and using a lot of bold doesn't really entice me to support your position. JPG-GR (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There should be other ways to achieve your objective, e.g. as the procedure is outlined in CSRT, one could just use instead. In addition, the images in the template can convey the idea that they are related to the person in the article. IMHO, they shouldn't be used in every article. -- User:Docu
 * Comment. Thank you for finally providing the links I had asked you for. You might want to add them to the template's documentation as well.
 * That is a topic to be discussed on the template's talk page, what the template should or shouldn't include. It is bizarre at best to take it to TfD because you think certain facets of a template should be changed. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My nomination omitted to mention the images. Now it's done. -- User:Docu 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it necesary for 900+ biographical articles to contain so much non-biographical information? This information should be covered in an article about Combatant Status Review (such as Combatant Status Review Tribunal) and then linked to from biographical articles. In an article about an individual accused of, arrested for, tried for, or convicted a particular crime, do we allocate 2–4 paragraphs to background information about criminal law and judicial processes in that jurisdiction? No, we link to the relevant articles and include only information that is directly relevant to the subject of the article. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The template has been greatly pared down from the original prose (which had intermittent "POV" warnings on some articles, not on others, etc - so we strove to replace, so that if somebody says including "the Bush Administration" is POV, we can change it in all cases.).


 * Initially the Bush administration asserted they could withhold the protections of the Geneva Conventions from captives in the "War on Terror", while critics argued the Conventions obliged the United States to conduct competent tribunals to determine the status of prisoners. Subsequently, the US Department of Defense instituted Combatant Status Review Tribunals, to determine whether the captives met the new definition of an "enemy combatant".
 * This simply explains why the prisoner was not treated in the traditional way, it basically says "The government claimed they could hold Bob without charging him, while critics said Bob couldn't be held without charges, so as a compromise Bob was partially-charged" or the equivalent. (That's not an apt summary, more of a simile). If there were disputes about how to proceed with a court case against any prisoner on WP, we'd spend a sentence explaining the two opposing viewpoints to his imprisonment. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The CSRTs are not bound by the rules of evidence that would apply in court, and the government’s evidence is presumed to be “genuine and accurate.”[1]
 * This is the only sentence that "explains" the CSRT, a single sentence in each article hardly seems like overkill to me - though again, POV claims can be made that it should reworded. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From July 2004 through March 2005, a CSRT was convened to make a determination whether each captive had been correctly classified as an "enemy combatant". CSRT-Yes was among the two-thirds of prisoners who chose to participate in their tribunals.[2]
 * This is simply saying whether or not the subject participated in their Tribunal, or boycotted it. Again, the wording can be reduced...but that's an issue for talk page, not TfD. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A Summary of Evidence memo was prepared for the tribunal, listing the alleged facts that led to his detention. His memo accused him of the following:
 * This seems necessary as a summary of facts that develop the accusation against the subject follows the information in each article. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Keep if modified to remove the images. The above justification for the text does not include them. DGG (talk) 01:08, 4 June 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.