Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 14



Template:WBCBL team

 * 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

Orphaned template for a non-notable basketball league. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:44, 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:Charleston Splash roster

 * 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

Orphaned template for a non-notable basketball team. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not necessary to have a template to create a table in one article. I assume the Charleston Splash article is going to AFD? If the article is kept, then this template should be substituted before deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 15 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.

Coor * 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 delete/redirect to.

All deprecated and unused. Redundant to Coord. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Having deprecated templates in place is useful when one needs to dig deep into old revisions of articles that used them (one would still be able to see the coordinates instead of red links).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, September 18, 2009 (UTC) Changed vote; see below.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:50, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Create individual redirects to coord. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 17:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirecting would be fine by me; and would resolve the concerns raised by Ezhiki. However, note that the sister trio of Coor at * templates were deleted. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mind turning these into redirects; that's a good compromise (I've struck my previous oppose vote accordingly). Perhaps it would make sense to create redirects for the "coor at" trio at the same time?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:50, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Turn into redirects per wise counsel above. Occuli (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace with coord where used then delete - Having so many ways of using coord template will only create confusion. Or perhaps keeping the redirect for a while and after some time delete. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 18:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but add Tdeprecated to them, so that old revisions, links in talk pages, or new edits containing these templates, would still show the coordinates, and so that it would be easier to find pages that contain the old templates. snigbrook (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's already been done; redirecting them would still leave possible all the things you list. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A redirect only transcludes the contents of the target page, even if there is anything else (such as a category or another template) that is in the redirect page (although if it is still acceptable to use the old template names this is not a problem). snigbrook (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Shouldn't we add to the discussion coor, Coor dm Antarctic and Coor d Antarctic? They have very few uses. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They certainly need to be looked at (and I intend to make sure that happens, in due course, but they're different cases to the templates listed above, an needn't delay us in dealing with them. Which reminds me - I think that this TfD is overdue for closure? Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:27, 23 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:Liqenas

 * 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 sole purpose of this template appears to be to list what villages surround a particular Albanian village and of what district it is a part. That can be done equally well in prose; a template is not needed for the purpose. Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:14, September 18, 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:Tru Calling

 * 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

Delete - 13 of the 15 articles in the template are redirects to the character list. There is no point to a template linking the redirects to two other articles already linked through the show's article. Otto4711 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not enough distinct articles to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 21:45, 15 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:Seasons in China national football team

 * 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

Delete All of the links in this navbox are either redlinks or redirects. – PeeJay 10:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 15:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom; not needed. GiantSnowman 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Links to two article is not enough to justify a navbox. --RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 16 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-tempabuse1

 * 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 3, 4 amd im. Keep 1 and 2. Ruslik_ Zero 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Templates that practice exactly what they preach against, and only serve to inflame a situation. If someone is mistemplating, it's probably an immature "nanana-booboo" thing, and this is only upping the ante. Especially egregious is the 4im template, as if misusing a warning template was as bad as placing "DICK DICK BALLS NIGGER DESERVES RAEP" on a page (i.e., akin to uw-vandalism4im). Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * DICK DICK BALLS NIGGER DESERVES RAEP DELEET - tests are best dealt with as tests, serious abuse is best dealt with as disruption (because it is), and the misunderstandings that fall in the middle are best dealt with in human terms.  These templates are unnecessary at the high level, and needless escalation at the lower end.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep on level 1 and 2; delete the others. The first of these was created after several requests at WT:UTM and designed for situations where IPs or new users would inexplicably slap a block notice or warning template on someone's talk page.  Likely vandalism, but possibly just testing or playing around.  I personally haven't felt a need to use these, but I could envision appropriate uses.  That being said, I agree with the nom that there is no need for the higher level templates (3, 4 or im).-- Kubigula (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep All - I don't know how many people I have seen who decide it is a good idea to copy/paste a warning I gave them onto my talk page, substituting my name for theirs... (ok, so just one, but keep anyway. It's like, why do you keep a fire extinguisher in your car if your car rarely catches fire?)--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep the 1 and 2 levels. Delete rest. By the time it reaches levels 3, 4, or 4im, it pretty much counts as a personal attack (or, better yet, use manual discussion).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep levels 1 and 2, delete the rest. Speeking as an admin who processes requests at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP nearly every day, I see a need for the AGF and assume-neutral-faith level one and two templates for the same reasons as were mentioned above by Kubigula.  However the level 3+ templates really are not necessary, as by the time the level one and two templates have been ignored by someone, it is obvious that they are just being disruptive and the standard vandalism templates can be used.  — Kralizec! (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I've used a number of these in the past and there are occasions where a uw-4im is warranted. Deleting these will most likely also break Huggle and Twinkle again, which usually happens whenever warning or cleanup templates are "deleted". --Tothwolf (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no occasions where a uw-4im is warranted that couldn't use another uw-4im template (if someone's knowingly abusing the templates, treat it as the disruption or vandalism it really is). Arguably, there are no occasions where "click this button to issue a uw-4im for warning templates" is a reasonable thing to do.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. While I personally do not use JavaScript "click this button to issue a uw-4im for warning templates" tools, there are indeed specific instances where a uw-4im for template abuse is warranted. This is specific to abuse of templates, not disruption or vandalism, such as someone issuing a "you will be blocked" or "you are blocked" talk page template as a threat in response to a content dispute. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It remains the case that if someone has dome something with the warning templates to warrant a 4im, it is unquestionably disruptive, and should be treated as the run-of-the-mill disruption it is.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Warning templates should always be as specific as possible, and especially a 4 or 4im. Using a generic template when one of these is warranted would not be specific and would not have the same effect. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I notice we don't have a template for level 4 "replacing the spelling of fish with ghoti". Warning templates need not be specific.  In fact, they should be generic and customizable, which most of them are "You have ACTION on ARTICLE, SIGNOFF".  Warning messages should be specific, and in sensitive cases the templates should not be used.  The templates are there to make managing the wiki easier.  They are not there as a timesaver or an excuse to avoid human contact.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, your "fish" example above is absurd. I supposed we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep levels 1, 2 and 3. Level 1 and 2 (and possibly 3) are useful, and although the other templates are unlikely to be used often, deletion wouldn't achieve anything.  Although abuse of warning/blocking templates is disruptive, it isn't always vandalism, and the wording of the personal attack warning templates isn't suitable enough for these templates to be redirected.  The level 4 and 4im templates can be redirected to Template:Uw-generic4 and Template:Uw-test4im. snigbrook (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] KEEP While rarely used, this template has value for overly zealous new editors who aren’t using the warnings at WP:UTM correctly. Also, if only to maintain consistency, if uw-tempabuse1 is kept, then Levels 2, 3, 4, and 4im should also be kept. — Spike (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any particular need for consistency here. We have many single level templates and some multiple level templates without higher levels (e.g. uw-test, uw-own, uw-unsourced).  Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to have a 4im template for some issues.-- Kubigula (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If newbies aren't using the templates appropriately, tell them so. Don't just drop a cookie-cutter warning template on their page.  We're not a bureaucracy - templates are not an excuse for a "computer says no" attitude.  Don't use them as a substitute for writing a more specific message.  That "edit section" button on talk pages exists for a reason, you know.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep levels 1 and 2 per Kralizec!; delete the rest as unnecessary. If it justifies a block, it's simply disruptive and can be treated as such. Tim Song (talk) 17:46, 24 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.