Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 22

< January 21	January 23 >

January 22

Template:Totally-disputed

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. delldot ∇. 02:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Totally-disputed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is redundant with {{articleissues}} with the "disputed" and "POV" options. Has been used inappropriately when in the middle of contentious edit wars because of the name, even if people are just questioning the npov or the disputing the accuracy. it was good while it lasted, but its time to go. Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to {{articleissues}}, {{POV}} and other existing templates. That, and we really need to take an axe to most of the article issue templates anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't, in your case, hammer be more appropriate than axe? Don't look at me weird, am just sayin'...:D --Cerejota (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold it - {{articleissues}} has issues, EG when you insert unrefferenced it outputs "It contains a section with a list of miscellaneous information. Tagged since January 2009." - Until these issues are fixed the nomination is factually incorrect. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. {{Articleissues}} doesn't do that to me. Also, you don't think this is redundant to {{POV}}? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeha the only issue I have seen {{articleissues}} have is that it breaks the "expert" parameter of "you can find them here:". Everything else has been fixed, and it is included and part of Twinkle... so it means it is properly exposed and easy to use. Furthermore, the issue here is redundancy, and that is not being addressed... {{totally-disputed}} is a relic of our past, and basically the same as {{articleissues}} with the "pov" and "disputed" options. (see below) --Cerejota (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, per Promethean. Stifle (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which article do you see something like this? Unreferenced parameter gives "It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources." -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

{{totally-disputed}}:
{{articleissues}} with "disputed" and "pov" options:

They say the same thing!--Cerejota (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I am sure now. With articleissues someone can handle each problem separatelly. Totally discuted is not helfpul. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with possibility of rename. It's nice having a tag that cuts down the need for both POV and Disputed tags. True it can be misused in edit-wars but so can many other things. In its appearance as a tag it looks like "strong delete" vs just a regular "delete" but it just challenges both neutrality and factuality at once. I think it is the name of the template that maligns it so I suggest that we either keep it, as is, or better, keep it but change the name to something less inflamatory. Valley2city 00:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete per reasons by TenPoundHammer. This is tentative because the {{articleissues}} needs to be modified since the wording makes no sense if there is only one issue, once that's fixed I'm a strong deleter. Additionally, if the plan is to cull all of these templates down as much as possible (a goal I would agree with), can I suggest this happen all at once, if only so that the developers of tools like TW can prepare and don't need to make lots of incremental changes. --Deadly∀ssassin 08:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is only one issue, articleissues has to be replaced with the appropriate template. I was thinking to create a bot doind it automatically. This is a work in progress. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that, but if we get rid of this template then there isn't the appropriate single template if you see what I mean. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant and potential for abuse. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unneeded. Garion96 (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2009 (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:ArticleSubjectBanned

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ArticleSubjectBanned (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This seems to be kicking them when they are already down, it just would make matters worse. I see no use of this template. Plus, even though not in the normal way, this template fails BLP. Garion96 (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Wikipedia is not a stick for poking people we don't like in the eyeball. (I'm not positive that's actually supported by the wikilink, but it should be). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely unacceptable template. If this was still in use, I would be tempted to speedy delete it right now. John Reaves 23:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The usefulness of this is low and the potential to abuse it is quite high. Captain panda 04:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as BLP violation and potential tool of abuse.--Eastlaw (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't imagine a good reason for this. --B (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2009 (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:Genie Engine 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 keep. JPG-GR (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Genie Engine games (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template used to navigate the games made with Genie engine. However, there are no informations that show the importance about the engine in the game articles. So, this template is unneeded and can be removed. Explorer09 (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep I do not believe the templates are intended to provide the information about how it is used in any article associated with them. This template's purpose is simply to provide a link to the games which have been created with the Genie Engine. I belive the information about it's uses and importance should be in the individual articles, not the template. --EclipseSSD (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - this does seem to be a fairly important unifying factor to all these games (their shared engine). It only links five articles, which isn't much for a navigation template, but I think it's just about enough. Terraxos (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2009 (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:Lead summary

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. JPG-GR (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lead summary (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template was intended to be used on (nearly) all pages, but was abandoned after a first trial. It is not the kind of change that should be introduced without an on-wiki discussion with a significant number of participants. However, as the template still exists, some well-intentioned editors come across it and may get the impression that it is something we should use. That's (probably) why it is being used on two articles now. To prevent such occasional use of this template which does not represent any consensus and goes against our current manual of style and the look of all articles, I would suggest deletion. Fram (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This template was always a bad idea, and its usage never properly discussed. The idea of having a short lead summary is contrary to current editing guidelines. The only purpose the template now serves is to facilitate breaking the manual of style, for no particularly compelling reason. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather than introduce consistency, it would probably reduce it. Just no, really. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 20:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More template clutter. Garion96 (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2009 (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.