Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 12



Template:Bridgenote

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to articles that are highly related to the topic is an example of inappropriate hatnote use. Neelix (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. We shouldn't tell people to go look at a Glossary page - it should simply be linked in a 'see also' section or elsewhere. This would be better replaced by a navbox linking to the other contract bridge articles. Robofish (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete even though I found it useful the first few times I came across it. The problem is that every new article you read contains this intro, and it becomes a distraction and a waste of the reader's time.  For unfamiliar readers, relevant articles should link to contract bridge in the first sentence, and the main contract bridge article should have the link to the glossary as a hatnote.  (Compare Template:Chess notation, which I created two years ago when I was editing under a different username than my current one.) 129.49.7.125 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - any such jargon should be a link to an article about that term, or its entry in the glossary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - that's what hyperlinks are for. A navbox would also be a nice touch if someone can be bothered (not volunteering). Have a look at some of the highly technical articles sometime if you think these articles are too jargony :-) --99.245.206.188 (talk) 01:39, 19 September 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:Amory Wars character

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphan, unused. Infobox character probably covers it. Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - unused and unnecessary. Robofish (talk) 01:08, 14 September 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:Intertoto Cup 2008

 * 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

The tournament is defunct and the template was used to link the "current" competitor. It is useless now. Matthew_hk  t  c  16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. – PeeJay 23:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, obsolete. GiantSnowman 09:41, 17 September 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:Tokyo-Infobox/Idea 1

 * 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 per T3.

Unmaintained. Contains only a red link. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unused and not useful. --RL0919 (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly speedy (test/T3). Robofish (talk) 01:06, 14 September 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:Ecliptical constellations

 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

This duplicates the functionality of Zodiac, and is currently unused. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question. The history and talk page for this template both indicate that it was intentionally split off from at the end of August. Is there a story behind this? --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a content dispute, since the new template did not work correctly (until I fixed it, just before nominating it for deletion), and the old template kept all the information that was there previous to the split. It appears to be a POV C-fork, judging from what went on at Zodiac. In any case, it's still a dupe, and has always been a dupe. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had left a note at WT:AST for additional input on the utility of such a template, prior to nominating it for deletion, with no responses in the period in which it was posted. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, absent any apparent use or explanation of how it is going to be used, I'll go with delete as redundant to the other template. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as redundant and unused. Robofish (talk) 01:05, 14 September 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:Uw-spellcheck

 * 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. I think Tim Song provided the best answer to the question of why this template should be deleted. Ruslik_ Zero 08:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Stupid template, promotes all sorts of bad robotic behavior. Write a note people. Prodego talk  03:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If a real rationale it truly required: warning templates are designed for cases when a user needs to be instructed of a particular rule, or guideline. That words should be spelled properly is something which a) is so blatantly obvious that it is pedantic to issue a warning about it, and b) something that is much better dealt with by fixing the spelling, and, if the spelling issues are not isolated cases, then perhaps a polite note on their talk page. Remember that many editors do not speak english natively. The way I have seen this template used is that the edits with the incorrect spelling are reverted, and then the user is left with a warning. Indeed, this is the normal use for warnings. Such actions are wholly inappropriate for typographical errors, and having a template to issue warnings about spelling (uw = user warning) encourages treating new editors as someone who's edits should be monitored and undone if they aren't perfect, instead of being people to collaborate with and assist. Prodego  talk  17:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Uw templates are lame. @harej 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Both the nomination and the above comment seem to be just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please provide actual reasoning for deletion. Anomie⚔ 12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - valuable as a note to editors who use lousy grammar. Many may not understand the value of having a quickly writeable template while doing vandalism patrol; it is not possible to write a length message to every kid who edits and introduces 8 grammatical errors in a short paragraph. I believe this template is as valuable as other one-time uw warnings and notes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Magog the Ogre (and agreeing with Anomie); but rewrite in plain English. The wording of the template uses complex sentence construction, whose meaning is likely to be lost on its target audience. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete We use canned warnings on vandals, editwarriors, and spammers for the most part. In the case of a user who is actively trying to write or improve article content, roboticly substituting a template and leaving is probably going to do more to confuse the user than help.  One of the strengths of the project is that we can copyedit other users bad grammar easily; poor grammar and spelling need not impede editing, so whether any kind of note is needed is questionable.  An editor using bad grammar may have a lot to contribute, if only they can be encouraged.  This template serves to bite and inflame more than anything else.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jake. Killiondude (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] KEEP I strongly agree with Magog the Ogre and Andy above. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg|15px]] COMMENT Andy does raise a good point: While such a template is very valuable for the purpose for which it has been created, its wording should take into account that the articulation of its ideas should be commensurate with the ability of its likely recipients to articulate their own ideas. Write it as simply as they can understand it … but with proper grammar and spelling. After all, if they could write well, they wouldn’t be receiving a polite warning. — SpikeToronto (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Discouraging people from making mistakes is contrary to the open nature of Wikipedia. See WP:5 and WP:BOLD. causa sui  ×  22:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it's too cumbersome, Wikipedia is not perfect, and we can fix it. This only becomes an issue if someone changes an otherwise-correct spelling, such as language POVists, which we already have the tools to deal with.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - userwarningcruft. This comes across as patronising, and arguably isn't the sort of thing we should warn people for anyway. If such a warning is needed, uw-preview is probably better. Robofish (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram_voting_comment.svg|15px]] COMMENT There’s nothing BOLD about making edits that leave orthographical and grammatical messes for others to clean up. SOFIXIT just becomes a cop-out, an excuse for editors to be lazy knowing someone else will come along and fix their messes. There should be a quick, easy way for us to place something on such persons’ talk pages letting them know to take more care with their edits. I think uw-preview could suffice if it were to have added to it something about spelling and grammar. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep I agree with robofish comment and believe it could be merged with uw-preview, though I also agree the initial deletion rationale is lacking in valid reasoning. On the positive side, the antiseptic/apologist wording in the template can minimise drama, a quickly worded personal note can often be misconstrued and editors do take umbrage when someone bluntly tells them to spell check. Templated boiler plate warnings like this do give the non career level diplomats the means to just ask someone politely to review their edits a bit more thoroughly, though some argue receiving a templated warning is more likely to get their backs up, can't win either way. Khu  kri  15:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It might help if this weren't referred to as a "warning" (for example, by having 'uw' at the start of the name and appearing in a category for user warnings), when "advice" or "suggestion" is a more accurate description. I doubt anyone is going to be formally sanctioned for having bad spelling. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because a template message has "uw" in the title does not make it is a scarlet lettre. The first line at WP:UTM states that "the purpose of user warnings is to guide good-faith testers and dissuade bad-faith vandals."  Single-level "warnings" like uw-spellcheck —as well as uw-preview, uw-notvote, uw-c&pmove, and a host of others— exist to inform presumably new editors how things generally work here on Wikipedia.  As Plastikspork noted below, these standardized messages exist to provide editors with an AGF way to pass on information about common issues without having to re-invent the wheel every time.  — Kralizec! (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, if the person is a regular editor, then take the time to write a personal note and don't just paste a template. If the person is not a regular, this sort of warning is not very encouraging. As RLO919 said, are we going to start blocking people for bad spelling? Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Jane: "Where did you park your car at?"
 * Jack: "You shouldn't end your sentences with a preposition."
 * Jane: "Where did you park your car at, a-hole?"
 * The above would be my gut instinct as a counter response if someone posted this on my talk page. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I fully understand both sides of the argument wrt WP:DTTR & WP:TTR, but would your response and lack of assumption of good faith be the fault of the template? Your example is an extreme case, if someone dropped a spelling template on you for grammatical errors, I would most likely point them back to the front page of WP:UTM and ask them to read it again and ask them if that template was really the right choice and please familiarise themselves a tad better. Now if Johnny Come-Newbie the latest aspiring contributor drops a personal message on your talk page, saying basically your spelling sucks and misses out the relevant number of pleases and oozing humbleness isn't there a high chance this will illicit the same a-hole response? Templates are never an excuse for a good ol personal message, though some editors will always take affront no matter if it's templated or not. Khu  kri  18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. You are correct that my gut reaction would be the same no matter how someone told me that my grammar and spelling sucked. I should add that dropping a template on someone with such a warning requires even less forethought on the part of the person issuing the warning.  Why is this template needed?  Are there editors who are issuing dozens of these warnings? The good thing about templates for warnings is that the ensure that the language is carefully chosen so as not to offend, when possible, and to encourage a change in behavior.  It also increases the speed with which a warning can be issued. This is a very good thing when it comes to blockable offenses.  I don't think this is a good idea when it comes to good faith edits, which may need to be run through a spellchecker.  After all, if you have a spellchecker in your web browser, why not just fix it yourself rather than spending the time to issue a warning.  As a final note, my gut reaction is typically far different from my actual response after I have had a chance to think about it. :) Plastikspork ―Œ (talk)  23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep If you don't like the strict wording of templates than don't use them. An issue I see with this template is that it can be seen as promoting several browsers, but that can be fixed by editing. The template itself is very useful, as with most other uw templates.  Them  From  Space  02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a bizarre argument to make about user conduct. "If you don't like biting the newbies, then don't do it." The problem with this template isn't that I, personally, find it distasteful to use it. The problem is that discouraging new editors from making mistakes is contrary to our other policies and guidelines. causa sui  ×  07:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not consider explaining our policies in a formal manner to be biting newbies.  Them From  Space  23:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, allow me to not bite you by explaining that new editors are to be bold when updating pages, and that it's against the open nature of Wikipedia to discourage new editors from making mistakes. causa sui  ×  18:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Ignoring the fact that this nomination appears to be based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any guideline or policy, I do not understand what the issue is with "robotic behavior." Obviously the Wikipedia community values robotic behaviour because otherwise we would not have automated tools like AWB, Huggle, Twinkle, or even rollback.  As long as tools like these exist, bad reverts will occasionally happen and regulars will occasionally get templated.  However these issues are not going to be resolved by deleting a template Prodego does not like; educating our users is the only way to address these concerns.  — Kralizec! (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect spelling is not harmful. Putting your bad spelling back after having it removed is, but we can already deal with that.  A level 1 template warning for SPG is clearly not appropriate.  Wikipedia is operated by humans.  Using bots for maintenance is one thing, automatism towards other (possibly new, possibly valuable) contributors is entirely another.  If you can't muster the effort to politely ask someone in your own words to take care of their spelling, don't bother at all.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't imagine this template causing more good than harm.  The whole point of a wiki is that people can contribute in whatever fashion they are able to contribute in, and together we'll make it something better.  This sort of warning violates the spirit of the wiki on a fundamental level.  In the early days of wikis it was actually encouraged to leave a couple spelling or other small errors on a page, so that others might be encouraged to get involved with editing.  Editors are allowed to be lazy.  If someone's contributions are not worth fixing, then we can easily revert them instead of fixing them.  Gigs (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Really unnecessary. Write a note! Garion96 (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - this template is, by it's very nature, BITEy. The problem is that newbies have to be bold to help the encyclopaedia grow, and issuing a warning template because of a spelling mistake discourages them from doing so, thus going against our BITE and bold guidelines. It has nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT, regardless of what several users seem to be assuming. In fact, the very idea that several of the above users (mentioning no names) consider it OK to issue a complete over-reaction, patronising warning to a new contributor (the only people it will be used on) for a non-blockable not-even-an-offence-but-a-mistake, despite the fact that editors do not need to be perfect is sort of worrying. Finally, the suggestion "if you don't like it, don't use it" is a little ridiculous. I mean, seriously - come on. We aren't here because someone dislikes using it - we're here because they think (and I agree) that it shouldn't be used at all. A le_Jrb talk  20:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Very unnecessary indeed. This template does nothing that can't be done manually, in a far more personal way. Peter <b style="color:#02b;">Symonds</b> ( talk ) 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Jake W. and Ale above, this template seems like it causes more harm then good. — Ed   (Talk  •  Contribs)  00:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep if only because the deletion of the template would discourage the creation of an improved one by sending a message that there should be no spelling-check templates at all. (I agree that this template, esp. the ad for Firefox in the middle, needs some work.)  -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 01:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike other single-issue notices, this one makes no sense. uw-c&pmove, uw-notvote, etc., serve to inform newcomers the way WP works. What does this one say about how WP works? WP...doesn't want spelling errors? This is more bitey then anything else. A personal note is far more preferable. Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 18 September 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.