Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1

< January 31	February 2 >

February 1

Template:BallStateCardinalsCoach

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete as duplicate. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplicate of Template:BallStateFootballCoach. Fbdave 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original is better. IronDuke 04:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Loads of non working interwikis. As-well as per nom.Telly addict 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, Dfrg.msc 23:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dupe. ~ Arjun 13:55, 4 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Infobox Tyler

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single use template that redirects infobox city. Placed info within the article itself. --MJCdetroit 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant, you can just use the city infobox instead.Telly addict 16:41, 2 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Infobox CA Business Route

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Functionality incorporated into Template:Infobox road. All uses of this template have been replaced by Infobox road. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant enough for a wikipedia template.Telly addict 17:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 01:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 02:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above • master_son^{Lets talk} 06:08, 8 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Sgspoiler

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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this template is necessary; use: Template:spoiler-season or Template:Spoiler for this purpose. This template was nominated for deletion about a year ago (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 16). +mwtoews 06:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are your friend. >Radiant< 12:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, although, I'd rather delete all spoiler template nonsense.--Doc^g 15:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not necessary, there is already a template like this.Telly addict 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect sounds good, but unfortunately some pages take advantage of the default values here. A simple find and replace bot / assisted browser could fix it. I'd do it, but I'm a mac user and pywikipedia for some reason doesn't want to work for me right now (which leaves me with manual browser edits). -- Ned Scott 19:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{spoiler}} - useless template that only adds ambiguity and weight to articles. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's really just Template:Spoiler-season, but was made as two templates so other shows can use the same idea. So it does have a use. -- Ned Scott 06:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why force people to type "|Stargate SG-1" for no good reason? This template makes adding stargate spoilers quicker, and doesn't do any harm. No-one has given a good reason to redirect - in fact, no one has given any reason at all beyond "ambiguity and weight". I have no idea what "ambiguity" is meant to mean - surely giving more detail makes it less ambiguous? And the weight is about a third of a line extra - is that really a big problem? --Tango 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Stargate universe is big enough that it should have it's own spoiler template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faris b (talk • contribs) 23:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Come on, Stargate has lasted 10 season and has a huge universe. Deleting the spoiler has no reason behind it, and what's the point? It's not like leaving it will kill somebody. Crad0010 01:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with standard template, then delete this specific one. Standardization on Wikipedia is compromised when special case templates fork from a more generic one. The standard spoiler templates are perfectly sufficient for every show. I think some folks are missing the point here - the nomination is not to remove the spoiler warnings from all Stargate pages, just to replace the calls to {{sgspoiler}} with calls to {{spoiler}}. Andrwsc 01:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete. Nobody has given any reason why the extra information here is necessary or useful, thus, standardization should overrule WP:IWANTIT. -Amark moo! 01:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extra information is useful because there are two Stargate shows, and a film, and each of the shows has multiple seasons. Some people may have seen some parts, but not others, and would like to know if the spoilers they are about to read are from part of the show that they've seen, or part that they haven't. Yes, that information can be given using the spoiler-season template, but that would simply involve typing more and getting exactly the same result - what's the point? --Tango 11:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Content disclaimer states: "WIKIPEDIA CONTAINS SPOILERS AND CONTENT YOU MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE" — If they don't wish to be spoiled then why are they using Wikipedia, how is the generic spoiler template not good enough? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 13:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an argument against this template, it's an argument against spoiler warnings in general. We've had that discussion plenty of times, and consensus seems to be to keep them. If you want to restart that discussion, so ahead, but this isn't the place. --Tango 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have a spoiler template, and there is nothing unique about this particular television show that merits its own distinct spoiler template. -/- Warren 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see why regular spoiler warning isn't enough. IronDuke 04:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all spoiler templates, they do not belong in an encyclopedia. Specialized spoiler templates are unnecessary a fortiori. Kusma (討論) 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place to argue for the deletion of all spoiler templates. If they should all be deleted, then obviously this one should too - this discussion should be to decide whether to delete this one despite keeping the standard ones. --Tango 15:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just using this opportunity to make the point again that there exists significant opposition to the use of spoiler templates. This one should go because it is worse (more words, more visible) than {{spoiler}}. Kusma (討論) 15:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Dfrg.msc 23:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete after bot replaces~~ with {{spoiler-season|{{{1|1}}}|Stargate {{{2|SG-1}}}|image=Stargate-earth-glyph.svg|pixelwidth=19|episodelist=List of Stargate {{{2|SG-1}}} episodes#Season {{{1|1}}}}}. --GunnarRene 00:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you give a reason for your recommendation? You've just suggested making absolutely no change to any articles, but just adding more wikicode to them and making future editing more work. What gain to you see in that action? --Tango 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we don't get hundreds of similar templates. --GunnarRene 04:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And processing. --GunnarRene 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until it's bot-replaced as in my comment above. --GunnarRene 04:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you rather mean "replace and delete"? Chris cheese whine 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Keep until we know that spoiler-season is kept, subst it with {{spoiler-season}} by bot, and re-nominate it as un-used. --GunnarRene 02:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With over 200 episodes, having a special template to shorten things really makes this template a very handy one. Cristan 15:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Policy > utility. {{spoiler}} is all we need. There is no need to specifically identify spoilers as being from a particular programme or a particular season. Chris cheese whine 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This.. isn't a policy dispute.. policy isn't this specific for anyone to claim that it backs up their view. The only big reason I see for deleting this template (without going into a spoiler debate in general) is because it's a bit redundant with {{spoiler-season}}. Even then, it's not a big deal either way. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redundancy is boolean. There is redundancy or there isn't. In this case, all of these templates are redundant to {{spoiler}}. Chris cheese whine 04:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you disagree with my comment above that it is useful to know if the spoilers are from part of the show you've seen, or part you haven't? Could you explain your disagreement? --Tango 11:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT utilitarian. The template is redundant, and there is no reason why a vanilla {{spoiler}} won't do - we don't care how far through any given season of any given programme any given reader might be, because it's entirely irrelevant to our purpose: to build an encyclopaedia. Chris cheese whine 12:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. If we go by your definition of redundant (ie. that's it's boolean), then this template is not redundant. It supplies more information than the generic spoiler template, and that information is useful (it doesn't matter if it's only a tiny bit useful, it's still useful). Therefore, it is not redundant. If you allowed partial redundancy, then it might qualify for that, but it doesn't meet your definition. I would disagree with your statement of our purpose - our purpose is the dissemination of knowledge for free, to everyone. That purpose doesn't require us to force knowledge upon people that they don't want. Our aim must always be to do what is right for our readers - don't let some misplaced sense of idealism get in the way of that. You may not care about what our readers want to know and what they don't, but I do, and more importantly, they do. --Tango 14:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't answered the all-important point - {{spoiler}} fulfills the function of this template: it lets people know that plot details are coming. That's all that's necessary. You haven't given any reason to suggest why we (a) need to specify that a given spoiler comes from a specific part of a TV show, (b) need a separate template for Stargate. In the latter, it's already a well-established principle that we don't create templates for the sake of it. Chris cheese whine 14:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
{{spoiler}} only fulfils part of the function of this template. It doesn't say what part of the show the spoiler comes from. Why it is useful to specify that information is blatantly obvious. We can have have a discussion as to how useful it is, but to say it isn't useful at all is just nonsense. As for having one specifically for stargate - it makes things easier, requires less typing, less confusing code in the source, less chance of mistakes. We create templates for pretty much anything that is repeated on lots of pages - this template is used on lots of pages. The code it would need to be replaced with to use {{spoiler-season}} (someone has stated it above) is very long and would need to be copied and pasted whenever it is used, so it is much easier to use a template - that's what templates are there for. --Tango 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your response is irrelevant - "requires less typing" is never a justification for a template, though in all fairness {{spoiler}} is less typing still. You haven't completed the join. You have correctly said that there is an extra dimension (specifying which part of the show a spoiler spoils), but what you have failed to do is demonstrate why there is a need for this dimension. I see a clear desire for this template, but I do not see a need for it. To me, it actually appears that the risks associated with using this template (inconsistency of template use, tagging information as being from the incorrect part of the universe), are actually greater than the risks of using {{spoiler}} instead (incorrectly tagging information as being a spoiler - can easily corrected even by an unknowing editor). Chris cheese whine 01:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What?! Typing less is exactly what templates are for. It's the primary reason for their existence. (The secondary reason being consistency and reducing mistakes in replication.) I don't see why "desire" isn't enough, as long as it doesn't do any harm. Trying to assess "need" without stating what it's needed *for* is pretty meaningless. Nothing is needed outright, things can only be needed in order to fulfil a desire. --Tango 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, typing less is not what templates are for. Templates are used to duplicate the same content across more than one page. Consistency is the primary reason for their existence, not secondary. You seem to be having trouble with the concept of necessity. Let me put it another way. Templates exist to solve a problem. As an example, the infoboxes exist to solve the problem of how to present key information across a series of articles in a consistent fashion (a "potted summary", as it were). Navboxes exist to solve the problem of how to reliably link a number of related articles. Both of these are high-impact problems. Infoboxes have an effect on usability, and linking is a key part of the wiki model (WP:BTW). If this template is the solution, what is the initial problem, and what are the consequences of leaving that problem unsolved? Chris cheese whine 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is putting the same content (a spoiler warning) on lots of pages in simply, easy and consistent way. The solution is, of course, a template. It doesn't really matter what order you put the reasons in, easy of editing is definitely a reason. Infoboxes could be entered manually every time they are used, there is no "need" for a template, it's simply easy to have a template. --Tango 20:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is putting a spoiler warning on lots of pages, that problem was already solved with {{spoiler}}. Chris cheese whine 00:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're going round in circles. We've discussed why {{spoiler}} isn't always enough. That argument should be on the spoiler-season TFD, rather than this one, anyway. --Tango 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going round in circles. You're going round in circles. I'm still waiting to hear why we need this template when {{spoiler}} is enough. If anything in {{sgspoiler}} isn't already in the article, then that's an article failing, not a reason to put a template up. Chris cheese whine 02:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you people crazy or SG haters? How can you think that the Stargate universe doesn't deserve it's own template? What? Is this template taking up a valuable 2kb of space or something? Come on! -- Faris b 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on... hating Stargate has nothing to do with this. You don't help your point by making ad hominem attacks. --Tango 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template	Is made redundant by :
This template	{{spoiler}}	{{spoiler-season}}	{{sgspoiler}}
{{sgspoiler}}	No	Yes
{{spoiler-season}}	No		No
{{spoiler}}		No	No

You are free to argue that the spoiler template is enough, of course, but the redundancy relation is as above. Note that this is not a symmetric relation. --GunnarRene 02:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the information contained is concerned, that looks about right, although you could say spoiler is made redundant by spoiler-season, as spoiler-season can be used pretty much anywhere spoiler is used (it would need adjusting slightly to take into account things that aren't divided into seasons, but that's just a matter of making the default no season, rather than season 1). Redundancy isn't the only consideration though, convenience is also significant. --Tango 13:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as many "spoiler" warnings as possible. Preferably all of them. Shanes 03:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with {{spoiler-season}}, and then delete, per GunnarRene — but don't delete until a bot has made the replacement. This has nothing to do with liking or disliking Stargate, and everything to do with standardization. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - way too specific. DB (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's no more specific than the various navboxes, and they get templates. --Tango 13:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is no importance rule on Wikipedia about templates. Templates aren't holy or divine. They don't need to assert notability. If {{spoiler-season}} can be kept, so can this. Because this is a shortcut to spoiler-season, and it's useful, and it's in massive use, and there's no reason why a template such as this can't exist if it is agreed that spoiler-season can. The latter was designed as a meta-template, by the way, exactly so that sub-templates like this could be created for individual shows. --Alfakim-- talk 06:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where to begin? there is no importance rule on Wikipedia about templates. They aren't exempt from having to justify their existence. Someone evidently feels this one doesn't, otherwise we wouldn't be here discussing it. Templates aren't holy or divine. They don't need to assert notability. Do you see a single argument to the contrary anywhere in this debate? If {{spoiler-season}} can be kept, so can this. Find me one citation on the 'Pedia to back it up - if it's there I'll give you the money myself. there's no reason why a template such as this can't exist if it is agreed that spoiler-season can Yes there is. Just look at this debate, and you'll find plenty of them. The latter was designed as a meta-template. Wrong. PS - adding it to the template doc does not make it so. Chris cheese whine 08:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replace and delete. Spoiler templates are inherently stupid, precious, and counterintuitive on an encyclopaedia, but if we have to have them, they should be standardised. Proto::► 13:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect – I nominated this template for deletion a week ago, and since then now {{spoiler-season}} is currently also up for TfD (here). As a fair solution for both templates, ignoring arg #2 in {{spoiler-season}} will avoid the "default values" problem identified by Ned Scott above, and there wouldn't be any need for a bot to fix this one, since it is %100 compatible. So yes, the spoiler template will exit, and will display the season number, which I'm now convinced is useful in, for example, Stargate SG-1. The only change is that the spoiler template would no-longer display the show name (arg #2); however I have argued my point that it is not needed to convey any more useful information to the users. See {{spoiler-season/proposal2}} for the proposed template.+mwtoews 19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've agreed that {{Spoiler-season/proposal1}} will suffice, and hope that the documentation will be adhered to (i.e., use {{spoiler}} if possible, and to not use parameters when they are not needed). As an idea to fix this solution:

Redirect {{sgspoiler}} to {{spoiler}}, for the hundreds of cases where it is not needed (these will probably "fix themselves" with time and normal manual editing — this isn't nothing urgent)
Manually fix the cases where the season number needs to be displayed using {{spoiler-season}}, such as Stargate SG-1, and other articles with multiple instances of a season.

+mwtoews 04:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with {{spoiler}} and then delete. I have no objection to the spoiler template -- I think a "hey, watch, we're about to discuss the plot" warning is helpful and harmless -- but a single generic template suffices for every occasion. In every SG page I looked at, the template was right next to the infobox which specified the season/episode, so the extra detail in this is entirely redundant. --DeLarge 16:57, 8 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:OTA

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. I also added the Open Travel Alliance cat to articles. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge, cumbersome template of loosely connected companies. The information would be much better served by a category. DB (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, use a category instead. Looks like over half the companies don't even have articles (or are improperly linked). -- Hawaiian717 05:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many non-existing links, if these were created then possibly keep but for the minute - delete.Telly addict 17:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is useless as a navigation template... things like this should be list articles. -/- Warren 03:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. - grubber 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorise as per User:Hawaiian717. Many articles would probably fail WP:CORP, so will always be redlinks. --DeLarge 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hawaiin717. Agreed that this could be better served through categorization. Luke! 23:59, 8 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Infobox CA Route

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 12:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depracated per WT:CASH. Also requesting deletion of...

Template:CA State Route (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox CA Route/browse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox CA Route/browse no route (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox CA Route/browse route (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Infobox CA Route/junction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

--Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 02:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete deprecated. V60 ^{VTalk - VDemolitions} 02:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. - grubber 00:43, 4 February 2007 (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 page.

Template:Islam Open Tasks/POV articles

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page being used in blatant violation of advertising and soliciting meatpuppets which states:

It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia.

This page is clearly a tacit invitation to members of the Wikipedia "Muslim guild" to go to those articles listed on the page to push the guild's POV. What seems to occurs is that when a Muslim guild member deems an Islam related article to not meet the desired POV he posts the link to solicit other members of the Muslim guild and like minded editors to can go there and dominate the editorial process through sheer force of numbers.--CltFn 12:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you produce evidence of users soliciting other users for canvassing "votes"? — Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my contention that the article linked on Template:Islam Open Tasks/POV articles have been listed for the explicit purpose of rallying like minded editors to go to them as a group to steer the editorial process of those pages towards a tacitly implied POV shared by users of this page. I would argue that the title of the page itself is sufficient evidence --CltFn 13:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should take Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting to WP:MFD as well? It pays to assume good faith. Nothing can be done without evidence. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You used the same exact description on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild/Articles_for_deletion_%28second_nomination%29

Muslim Guild doesn't even exist anymore.

Keep per my arguments every other time you have used that nomination statement. -Amark moo! 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I strongly disagree with your response to Nearly Headless Nick's question above. Just because it has a title that looks bad doesn't mean the content is quite so negative. I applaud the efforts of this WikiProject: they're tackling a huge issue on the 'Pedia (namely the POV in many articles). We all know that the average (EN) Wikipedian editor is a caucasian American male. As such, articles on Islam may very well have huge POV issues. These editors, who are Muslim or know a lot about the subject, are merely attempting to correct some of these POVs. How is that POV-pushing? I see no evidence that they have violated any Wiki policy (including, perhaps most notably, WP:NPOV) in tackling some of these articles. Additionally, I would remind you (again) that even if they were to attempt to do something through "sheer force of numbers," it would not succeed. A CheckUser would be run, their actions reported to WP:ANI or WP:AIV, and they would probably be blocked, perhaps even permanently. Do not doubt the ability and shrewdness of EN's many admins. Members of the Islam WikiProject have not, however, been doing anything through "sheer force of numbers." As far as I can tell, what really happens is that one editor sees an article that does not adhere to WP:NPOV and posts the link so others can help correct it. I haven't seen any instances of more than two editors working on the same article at the same time. CltFn, I'm sorry to say that I believe this may be a bad-faith nom. You nominate WikiProject Islam subpages for deletion with unsettling frequency and have been the subject of at least one RFC for your behavior as regards bad faith edits, many of which are to Islam-related articles. Srose (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless or until misuse is shown. Projects have the right to keep a watchlist of articles, absent evidence of misuse. Herostratus 21:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename. Stating that the articles have "POV problems" isn't very subtle.Proabivouac 06:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In an attempt at transparency, I believe the closing admin should take a look at this now-deleted RfC for Proabivouac. (A closing admin will be able to see certain subheaders which contain relevant information.) Srose (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why? , the RFC is absolutely irrelevant to this MFD process.--CltFn 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly. The user seems to be involved with many articles on this Template. Srose (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions. ITAQALLAH 09:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the other times this discussion has come up. rename to "Neutrality disputes" if the current title poses a problem. CltFn was indef banned a while ago for exhausting community patience for this kind of behaviour. as a last chance, he was unbanned on the condition that he would reform his behaviour. since he has returned, however, i am not convinced that has been the case at all. ITAQALLAH 10:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah, I don't understand what that has to do with this discussion, as he was not banned "for this kind of behavior." There's nothing wrong with nomming templates for deletion. Similarly, to Srose above. You might score a point or two today, but at the cost of poisoning of the atmosphere.Proabivouac 21:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Itaqallah's remarks, I do not believe this is the place to express vindictiveness towards fellow wikipedia editors .--CltFn 22:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Srose (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It is important for us to know which articles have POV disputes, so we can hix them. This templete serves a very ligitiment purpose for wiki project Islam.--Sefringle 05:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Sefringle--Sa.vakilian 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Aminz 06:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Moved from WP:MFD to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 1, wrong jurisdiction. All !votes above should be kept, but the timeline for considering this page should be extended to that given to newly listed TFD's. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We need to see a demonstration of actual inappropriate behaviour before we start deleting what could otherwise be helpful tools for editors. Let's assume good faith here. -/- Warren 03:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep The list at present contains primarily articles with POV disputes between editors of different orientations within Islam. DGG 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Srose. Dfrg.msc 23:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We need this. Even the non-Muslims such as me. {Slash -|-Talk} 06:56, 8 February 2007 (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 page.