Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 26

< June 25	June 27 >

June 26

Template:Illustrated Wikipedia

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. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from my personal belief that summarizing articles as cartoons is completely unencyclopedic, this template is unnecessary. Self-references do not belong in articles; they go on talk pages, and that's what {{WikiWorld}} is for. — ShadowHalo 23:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep this is part of a funny series of illustrations for articles. -N 23:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is about producing encyclopedia articles, not cartoons. And more importantly, self-references do not belong in articles. ShadowHalo 03:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Great cartoons, great to reference to on talk pages, but not on the actual articles. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another template more suited for the job is there, so pretty much a redundant template. Kwsn^(Ni!) 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some people like one thing, some another. I don't like WikiWorld, but it doesn't bother me and a light touch doesn't hurt. DGG 02:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wouldn't minbd if it was on the talk page, but as per the nominator & the above delete votes, I don't think it belongs on the article page. Cheers, Spawn Man 04:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Avoid self-references in mainspace. –Pomte 03:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't about removing all reference to WikiWorld; this is about removing a self-reference from main space. There is already a talk-page template to indicate that an article has been covered at WikiWorld; that's sufficient. —Angr 05:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - while technically this is indeed a self-reference, in spirit it is equivalent to the templates we have linking to the Commons or Wiktionary etc, offering a different view on the same topic. Hiding it on talk pages would eliminate most of the positive public relations effects of the project. Or are only editors allowed to laugh? --Latebird 11:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - The core of the problem seems to be that the creators implemented this as a Wikipedia:WikiProject. While all(?) other WikiProjects are work tools for editors that have no business being linked from mainspace, WikiWorld serves an entirely different purpose and its audience is not limited to editors. I don't know if there is a better tool available for this type of stuff (short of eg. cartoons.wikimedia.org). Maybe wrapping the template in Template:Selfref would defuse the problem for the moment? --Latebird 12:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Commons and Wiktionary templates provide utile resources related to the articles. {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} provides a link to a cartoon and a link to a WikiProject unrelated to the article. Articles are not vehicles for public relations when the material promoted does not contribute to the goals of creating an encyclopedia. I don't see any other encyclopedia (paper or not) including cartoons in its articles in this manner. ShadowHalo 06:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong exasperated Keep: seriously, has nobody here actually checked as to the history of this template and the associated project? It's getting tedious how every couple of months some bored person decides to have a go at deleting the damn thing yet again. —Phil | Talk 13:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to keep or delete. The last discussion was speedy closed because a separate WikiProject was being created and not because this template should or should not exist. ShadowHalo 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Other WikiProjects maintain portals as an article space location to link to. Why not this one? --Latebird 23:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Hinduism contains a link to Portal:Hinduism because Portal:Hinduism has lots of extra information related to Hinduism. Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld, however, has no information related to the articles. ShadowHalo 05:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I see no problem using it like the commons template. It's a "value added" feature, in that it postively enhances the encyclopedia (hey, where would New Yorker be without some of its famous illustrations?), and going at it simply on the basis of "self reference" seems to be grasping at straws. Afterall, all the SA links are self reference, and for that matter, technically, every blue link is a self reference. The point of no self references is that you're not supposed to use wikipedia references as sources for article content. The cartoons aren't being used as references/sources, but rather as illustrations, just as any other image is in an article. Therefore, the argument is bollocks, and the template should stay. AKRadecki^Speaketh 13:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your opinion with which I don't agree, but saying other people's arguments are bollocks is actually bollocks. Garion96 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, blue links are not self-references. They make no reference to Wikipedia whatsoever. And your summary of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references is completely wrong. It states "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project, such as 'This Wikipedia article discusses ..."" This template is, as Latebird stated, a public relations tool for Wikipedia:WikiProject WikiWorld and doesn't belong in the article space. ShadowHalo 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misstate me. I consider the WikiWorld project (including the template) a Public Relations tool for all of Wikipedia. The intention of the template is to point to actual content (yes, the cartoons are content). It's just a technical peculiarity that the way it does so can be construed as a "self-reference". But then, technically speaking, the same applies to the Commons, Wiktionary, and Wikisource templates. --Latebird 20:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have edited the template to add class="selfreference" as per {{selfref}}. (I'm not actually certain what this class does: our lists of CSS classes are woefully out-of-date and neither monobook.css nor common.css seem to mention it, but don't let that stop us using it.) To be brutally frank, I think this whole thing is based upon a mis-reading of WP:ASR which if taken to its logical conclusion would disallow tagging of featured articles: you want to argue that we should delete {{featured article}}? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, I don't care much if it's a self reference or not, I just don't think it is fitting on the actual article. Admittedly a silly comparison but on the article Shaving I woulnd't put an external link to [1] so why to the wikiworld cartoon? IMO of course. Garion96 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's actually more akin to WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia in that it takes current material and re-presents it to enable people to experience in a different and hopefully engaging way. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these things are great, and add value and something additionally interesting to the article. Cary Bass ^demandez 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is cool and a service to the reader. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like Green Eggs and Ham, but I do like Image:Dr_seuss_cartoon.JPG. Wow! This is fantastic and a great leap forward in free content. Thank you. Oh, and that means "keep". --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep `cause it is pretty kick ass! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. Please remember to comment on the issues brought up in the nomination. ShadowHalo 00:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Since you have utterly failed to justify or even explain your "personal belief that summarizing articles as cartoons is completely unencyclopedic", there seems to be very little upon which anybody can actually comment. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I echo Latebird's comments: the cartoons are content presented in a different way. I don't see how this self-reference is any different than the Commons, Wiktionary, and Wikisource templates - it points to something additional about the article. In this case it's an illustration. The reader is given the option click on the link if they are interested. Royalbroil 05:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not that much different from {{commons}} or {{wiktionary}}. The Illustrated Wikipedia is an .en exclusive project, limiting its exposure does nothing to make this place better. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The cartoons are a value-add, and there has to be some way of mentioning them that is compliant with the rules and not too obtrusive (to avoid wasting the time of readers who are completely serious-minded and would never look at a cartoon). I like the analogy to {{commons}} provided by the last commenter, though I sometimes would like more information about why I should look in commons. The tiny clickable image included in {{Illustrated Wikipedia}} gives you a reason to go and look, unlike the {{commons}} template which is pretty vague. EdJohnston 20:16, 3 July 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 section.

Template:Needs rationale

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was created to be a "non-speedy version of {{nrd}}", but why should we need such a thing? Nonfree images with no rationale are candidates for speedy deletion once they've been tagged for seven days, so why should there be a "non-speedy version"? —Angr 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. We have no reason to keep this.--†Sir James Paul† 22:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should only have one way of dealing with copyright problems, so this is against accepted policy. DGG 02:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We only need one method of dealing with copyright issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:32, 30 June 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 section.

Template:Slasher film killers

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The template is redundant to another better-designed template (Template:Horror Icons). — Enter Movie 16:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being redundant with {{Horror Icons}}. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and move the entire "Modern" section of Template Horror Icons here. I see here the opportunity to put to rest for good all the debate on which killers are "iconic" and which aren't. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:21, 4 July 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 section.

Template:Countries of continent

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary template, created by an inexperienced user without an obvious purpose. Coincidence or not, the editing pattern of SwedishZeta (talk · contribs) is very similar to that of Qasaqsuyu (talk · contribs), who created many similar navboxes, all of which were deleted. --Latebird 13:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnecessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would welcome clarification from SwedishZeta (talk · contribs), whose first edit was 23 June, as to what this strange template is about. (He has received notice of this TfD). Looking at his contribution history is rather alarming; I see that he has deleted 'Mongolian' as one of the languages of Inner Mongolia. I wonder if he will continue in the present vein for much longer without administrators taking an interest in his activities. The edits of Qasaqsuyu (talk · contribs), which stop on 21 June, look very strange as well. He makes esoteric changes to off-the-beaten-track articles that look completely bizarre. His Talk page has collected one warning after another. EdJohnston 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SwedishZeta has by now recreated Template:Countries of North Asia, which was deleted after Qasaqsuyus created it the first time, so it's evidently the same person. --Latebird 21:25, 3 July 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 section.

Template:OFootball

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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 03:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is only for 2 football teams. Very unlikely more national Gridiron teams will be added to the Oceania region.. Breno ^talk 08:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being unnecessary. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary. Would welcome a comment from the creator of the template, Twillimsted (talk · contribs), as to its justification. He has been notified of the TfD. EdJohnston 20:44, 3 July 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 section.