Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 19



Template:Interstate & 2 others

 * 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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Only used on one userpage. Since that user is no longer active, should delete rather than userfy. WOSlinker (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom; not useful otherwise.  Swarm   X 06:25, 27 November 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:Surrender

 * 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned. Arbitrary image selection. Will not render well on all screens and in some cases will not render at all. This template is intended for infoboxes to denote commanders who surrenderd in battles. Marcus Qwertyus   20:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The white flag has been used for this purpose on articles before the template was created (to simplify its use, obviously). How a white flag is an "arbitrary image selection" for a symbol of surrender is beyond me. Furthermore, template certainly isn't orphaned since all similar template pages contain a link to it and it is used in several articles.  Swarm   X 21:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per below  Conditional keep it isn't a white flag. It's a blue-bordered white square that probably doesn't mean anything to anybody who doesn't know the template name. Keep Template:POW though, and replace this with that. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Unicode character's name is 'white flag'. Also, there is a distinction between "surrendering" and being a prisoner of war. It's an important distinction. For example, if a commander is unwillingly captured, that's not the same as if they militarily surrendered.  Swarm   X 22:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)   Swarm   X 22:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Displays as a rectangle with the codepoint (2690) on Windows Vista / Firefox. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Could be replaced by an image - White flag icon.svg - Is already used on some articles -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll keep if replaced with the icon from WOSlinker. If not, I strongly suggest it be deleted. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, the change has been made. Much better image.  Swarm   X 07:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, great image. It's no use if it only renders right on everything other than Windows and Firefox. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per most of my rationale for the TfD below (Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_19). There are nuances to "Surrendered" that the icon oversimplifies: commanders who fled but whose army surrendered, commanders who surrendered but whose forces fought on, commanders who didn't surrender but were nevertheless captured, commanders who surrendered and subsequently died, commanders who surrendered but who weren't captured (as in siege warfare for example, where a comander might be allowed to quit the field with honours) etc. The wikilink is also unsuitable, but that's not a major issue. EyeSerene talk 11:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's purpose is in for an infobox, it's meant to be simple. At the same time, it avoids oversimplification by adding a different aspect to pow. surrenderpow can be used if they were captured. If they weren't capured, we don't use pow. If their army surrendered and they fled, we don't use anything. If they were captured unwillingly, we don't use just use pow. Again, using the flag is already common practice, making it a template just serves to simplify the practice.  Swarm   X 20:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the Wikilink has been removed; it's not necessary.  Swarm   X 23:49, 24 November 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:Executed

 * 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned. Arbitrary image selection. This template is intended for infoboxes to denote commanders that were executed in battles. Marcus Qwertyus   20:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Same as above, the skull and crossbones were used to symbolize execution in infoboxes before the template was created; its useful for simplifying future usage. Not really an orphan, as all other pages in the category link to it and it was just created.  Swarm   X 21:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep If somebody hadn't told me, I would have wondered what this was. Is that seriously a skull and bones? it looks like a dove sitting on a olive branch. (Seriously Face-plain.svg.) WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 21:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change the image with a better one if you really feel that way. However, the point still stands. It's reasonable to denote commanders who were executed in battle, rather than released.  Swarm   X 22:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is, but not to denote them as having received Capital punishment (that's what the linked image leads to). First you think the new image up, if you want to keep it. I'll keep if they use the character, but the unicode character is AWFUL. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 01:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The image is linked to "executed". "Executed" is the same as "having received capital punishment". I personally feel the unicode character is fine, but if you don't, you're free to change it with a better one. Not liking it isn't a valid argument for deletion.  Swarm   X 07:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, per the above section, I've converted the unicode character to a similar image because unicode can be a problem for some users.  Swarm   X 07:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the image now. So long as you don't change it, I'll keep. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • lost • defense • attack) 02:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Useful to describe an event.  Change the image if need be. Dinky town   talk  11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To what? It's utterly useless as is. Marcus Qwertyus   17:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How is it useless? It has a use, you noted it yourself in the nomination: "This template is intended for infoboxes to denote commanders that were executed in battles".  Swarm   X 07:37, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete There is some merit to having a KIA symbol/note next to commanders who lost their lives in whatever battle the article's about, but this is really just a subset of "KIA". We can't cover all eventualities in the infobox and this seems to me to be a step too far. EyeSerene talk 10:53, 22 November 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:Qur'anic People

 * 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. — ξ xplicit  05:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much a duplicate of Template:Prophets in the Qur'an. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 07:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, dupe of Template:Prophets in the Qur'an, per nom.  Reh  man 05:48, 25 November 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:Channel Awesome

 * 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:NENAN. Currently navigates only four articles, one of which is at AFD and not likely to survive. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Every single other person at the AFD in question says keep but you, so yes, it is very likely to survive. All of the things in the template are quite notable, and there is no minimum size requirement for this sort of thing.   D r e a m Focus  08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It currently navigates six articles including Channel Awesome itself. This would be seven apart from an article you removed from the template (I've just added it back).  WP:NENAN is just an essay.  Two current ongoing AfD's were started by you and you were one of the first votes in the third; I thought that was just coincidence but this new TfD pushes me into Suspecting Bad Faith territory. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:NENAN, links to at least 5 articles. Jarkeld (talk) 02:39, 21 November 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section.