Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 May 29



Template:Active Pricing Games

 * 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) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

All linked articles have been or are in the process of being merged into List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Template is no longer needed. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 23:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unpopulated and unnecessary. — Satori Son 15:02, 1 June 2010 (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:Repression in the Soviet Union

 * 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. Those concerns that were brought up mostly involved the content of the template rather than its existence. Hopefully the edits that have been made address these concerns, but if not editors are more than welcome to keep improving it. delldot  &nabla;.  17:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any similar templates in this category for other countries, and I feel that it's not fair in respect of the country I was born in. This template is simply a heavy POV. 213.164.124.252 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Delldot (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I feel that this template provides a function; grouping together similar articles on the Soviet Union, it does not have a point of view. The articles are well referenced. Templates like this do not exist for other countries because they do not have articles on the subjects.  Captain n00dle \ Talk 23:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * comment. I would not question the existence of this template. But it's contents are ... lame, as kids will say. It starts with global, and largely intersecting topics (political vs. ideological is a very thin distinction when both end with 9mm in the temple), and ends up with very narrow salient topics like Radio in the Soviet Union (a stub that does not even attempt to describe its topic) and Copyright law of the Soviet Union (looks good but had they no better-fitting topics at all? was it the only instance of "economic repression"?). The central core of specific campaigns (Red Terror, Collectivization etc.) is what it's all about - the history of organized murder. But why is it labelled "Political?" Millions were deported and killed without any formal charges. Is organized starvation a political or an economic act? etc. Another concern is that the list follows and reinforces the worn-out scheme of Khruschyov, Conquest, VOA and Co.: let's overrate the so-called Great Purge and forget the "lesser one" which claimed far more lives. Conclusion: I don't know if it's salvageable, too much drama on both sides of the wall. East of Borschov (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment – the topic is notable, but the template could be redone to cover it better, so I suggest a restructure. I took a look and am not sure how to go about doing it, though, so if nobody knows how, I will say delete. If it is restructured based on East of Borschov and 13.164.124.252's comments, I may go for a weak keep. Airplaneman   ✈  16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete See no need for it, and it included numerous of articles which are placed in the category of atrocoties and controversy, such as the forceful collectivization, which is seen by many not as a repression but as a mean socialis the Soviet economy, among others. --TIAYN (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the articles exist, and this template seems like a good way of linking them. The current content of the template is questionable, but I've made a few changes - removing the Copyright, TV and Radio articles as suggested above, and adding a couple about censorship, which I think improves it somewhat. Robofish (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2010 (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:Bad Job

 * 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) 23:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Template designed to discourage editors from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and BJAODN [sic]  - WP:NPA, WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL. Sole purpose is to attack users. -- sk8er5000 yeah? 12:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It simply isn't true that the template is designed to discourage editors from further editting. If anything, the template is designed to spur the editors of certain pages to begin editting better.  The template isn't even directed at specific users but at articles, just like the Good Job template. Just as the Good Job template is used to let the editors of a specific article know that reliable sources think that they are on the right track (E.g. Xenu), the Bad Job template can (theoretically) pierce the bubbles of Wiki-group-think that can sometimes form by indicating that reliable sources think a certain article is on the wrong track (E.g. global warming). It's one more tool for helping Wikipedia become the best that it can be. Eugene (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no good reason for the template. The place to discuss a bad job is on the Discussion page. PYRRHON  talk   03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There are better ways to handle this, especially through discussion. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 15:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unhelpful, and a breach of policy. Andy Mabbett (User: Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This, unlike other templates that we already have, does not state what the problem is.  I don't see how it can be used for anything but non-constructive criticism. Cardamon (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * POINTier than a fakir's bed. No good can come of this. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even in the very small number of cases where use of this template might be slightly helpful, the press template does a much better job without violating WP:CIVIL. — Satori Son 14:59, 1 June 2010 (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:North Gippsland Football League

 * 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) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ORPHAN, WP:NOTE. Template only linked to once in mainspace,teams are not notable. sk8er5000 yeah? 10:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed. Samwb123T (R)-C-E 23:04, 29 May 2010 (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.