Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 20

< September 19	September 21 >

September 20

Template:Infobox Generic subway station

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 11:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Generic subway station (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only one instance. Not edited since 2006. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like nobody can accept their local subway is just a generic subway. Or maybe they think Generia is some other country? Anyway, it's redundant. Bazj (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Nelly Furtado singles

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 debate was merge into Template:Nelly Furtado. Template:Nelly Furtado singlesturned into a redirect to preserve page history for GFDL. delldot ∇. 21:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nelly Furtado singles (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

There is no reason for this, as "Template:Nelly Furtado" exists. Suggest moving this info to Furtado's main template and deleting this. eo (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Cite review

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 debate was delete. Wizardman 11:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template that completely lacks documentation is useless and isn't being maintained. meco (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two instances; seems to be redundant to {{Cite journal}} and others. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was used to cite reviews of journal articles, scientific books, etc. which required a slightly different formatting from {{cite journal}}. It doesn't seemed to be used anymore. —Ruud 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:Infobox Arab villages depopulated

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 debate was delete delldot ∇. 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Arab villages depopulated (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is a duplicate (you could say, a POV fork) of {{Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine}}. It is clearly worse as some fields that should be optional are mandatory, the formatting is worse, it's more cluttered, and has fields which clearly violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The POV nature of the template can clearly be seen here, with the comments made by its creator. I intended to nominate it on September 21, but did so today because there are clearly no serious arguments in favor of its use. Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator.
Keep as creator. It is a wonderful little template, that I have created. (It is based on the old one, see later.) Everytime you look at it it simply baffles you. You ask yourself: WOW MAN. This guy, who made it, must be a genius. Well, folks, I assure you, this is a litlle off the mark, but that said, I give you - it does have certain qualities. It is first of all a nice design, - introducing the same colour scheme as in Palestinian people. This is part of making all articles regarding palestinians in the same design. The palestinians , like all arabs, have a superior sense of art and ornamentation, easily outdoing their current masters in the holy land. This is a way we can outdo them - by creating beautiful pages. The nominator mentions that many of the fields 'are not optional'.IT IS BASED ON THE OLD TEMPLATE: Template:Infobox Former Arab villages in Palestine - AND I HAVE MADE 15 additions, THE MAJORITY OF WHICH ARE INDEED - optional---as can be veryfied by consulting the programming code behind this Template; it has the word 'if:' featuring dominantly - meaning that only if there is data about a field, will the field be displayed. Nick Finnsbury (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC) It is simply unacceptable that a palestinian that I have been working for, now proposes to delte the infobox!! I am baffled, and begins to think that he must be somekind of an israeli spy!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Finnsbury (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per Ynhockey. Also the color scheme of Palestinians is the same as all ethnic groups. The Jew infobox is the same. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Since the issues were not addressed, I suggest we stick to the current infobox. -- Nudve (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OBS! Nudve and the contributor himself, what is he called - ah, thats right: Icehockey - are not credible in this regard, as they started this dubious pseudo-discussion about a non existing problem. And Nudve allowed the discussion to continue, even after Icehockey used arguments involvin shoah, clearly very biased argumentation, and totally inappropriate in a discussion regarding the Nakba - the Catastrophe that have occurred to the Palestinian People. And Al-Ameer, I am sorry to say, for some dubious opportunistic reason, have sided with his peoples strategic enemy in this question. Nick Finnsbury (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while User:Nick Finnsbury has a lot to learn about the project, he has produced something that could be useful under certain circumstances. This deletion appears to be part of a campaign of Denial, eg replace "Nakba" with "Palestinian Exodus" - despite the fact that former being 30 times more popular than the latter even on English language web-sites. The state of Israel-Palestine conflict articles is so dire partly because editors like Nick, who may have a lot to add to the project, are having their non-controversial and non-article work targeted and deleted. The project gains nothing from this, and there is no policy reason for this highly discriminatory treatment - and would be none even if he were a nationalist partisan (I don't suppose he is). Nationals of the alleged perpetrators (and possible Deniers) should not be deleting relevant parts of the published record - any more than Chinese nationals or nationalists should be allowed to delete the Tank man image at Tiananmen Square. PR^talk 18:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's wrong with the original template that's used in most of the depopulated village articles? It has the same core issues as the new template, but doesn't include the specific land ownership by ethnic group, the Crusader name, the amount of houses, public structures, etc., all of which need not be included in the infobox but are already stated in the body of the article. My main problem with the infobox is that there's nothing wrong with the original infobox, the new one is identical to the ethnic group infobox and the new one is just too massive. Also, I don't see a point of having the coat of arms of Israel placed on both sides of the "Military campaign" section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Nick Finnsbury, who has made a very convincing argument that this template represents a POV fork of the worst kind. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary duplication of existing template. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Number57 and nom. --Shuki (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Chemistry dispute 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 debate was Keep (non-admin closure). Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Disputed diagram (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Low quality chem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Disputed chem (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Last two unused, first on a hnadful of images, where it would be as well or better served by {{disputed}} and a mention on the appropriate project page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:30 4 September 2008 (GMT).

Redirect to {{Disputed}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 00:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these templates are supposed to be empty, or largely so. If they are transcluded, it means problems have not been fixed. They serve a function by categorizing what needs fixing, and allowing chemists to zoom in and fix them. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these templates have been created as mirrors of the Commons templates Commons:Template:Disputed diagram, Commons:Template:Disputed chem, and Commons:Template:Low quality chem to allow for the same tagging procedure in both places. They are regularly used to tag problematic chemical structures as a warning and in order to get them fixed or deleted. The templates also provide an important link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Structure_drawing guidelines. I do not regularly use Template:Disputed diagram on Wikipedia, it might be less important on Wikipedia than on the Commons. Cacycle (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They are useful for maintenance purposes, to better categorize the accuracy disputes that are unique to chemistry images. Like Rifleman said, they don't seem to be used much at any given moment because (largely thanks to the templates) the problematic figures tend to be dealt with quickly. But they are used (I'm not sure I've seen the first one used, though, but that's just anecdotal on my part.) --Itub (talk) 05:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For the reasons mentioned above. --Leyo 19:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Note they have been on a number of images for a significant amount of time. These have not be fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 02:07 22 September 2008 (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.