Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 21

< December 20	December 22 >

December 21

Template:User aclu

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 userfy. This is exactly why we have the userbox migration. —Mets501 (talk) 17:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant T1 template ({{User aclu}} moreso than {{User ACLU}}) and G4 recreation of a frequently deleted template [1]. Two admins declined to speedy ({{User aclu}}, so I'm bringing it here suggesting speedy delete. --BigDT 23:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see how supporting the ACLU is so divisive or inflammatory that it must be deleted. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone is a "proud, card-carrying member" of any political or religious organization, I would think that would be considered "divisive". BigDT 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - divisive: (adj) Having a quality that divides or separates [2] --24fan24 02:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:GUS. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per Amarkov. This is no different than any other political userbox. ~~Also how does this possibly meet the G4 criteria?~~ --24fan24 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that you don't have to have it in template space, right? You can create User:24fan24/User ACLU, then transclude it using {{User:24fan24/User ACLU}}. All or substantially all of the political and religious userboxes have been moved to userspace. --BigDT 02:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do realize that and I actually do have an ACLU userbox on that page :). It is fine if someone wants to move this to the userspace as per Wikipedia:Userbox migration, but this is voluntary and I certainly do not feel that this template should be deleted. --24fan24 03:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - But the reason for deletion is T1, which most certainly should apply to userspace templates as well. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 02:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except it doesn't, per policy and accepted practice. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Userfy is a well-accepted solution for exactly this. T1 was discussed at length when GUS started. Move it and be done with it. Perel 07:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy let's userfy it and everybody should be satisfied. I only see three transclusions right now so we won't even have to use AWB to repoint the links. Charon X/talk 16:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. CSG T1 states that a template must be divisive and inflammatory to be eligible for speedy deletion. Arguing that "divisive" includes any template that divides people into categories of either belonging to a certain group or not would exclude literally every template there is. I've got a newpage patroller userbox on my userpage. Clearly this divides me from those who do not patrol the New page, but does this make it "divisive"? As for "inflammatory", I hardly think mentioning membership in an organization like ACLU is all that inflammatory. Geoffrey Spear 17:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Template:User aclu userfied to User:Royalguard11/userboxes/aclu, Template:User ACLU now has a UBM box on it pointing to User:Disavian/Userboxes/ACLU. Lets not start a war of words now. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:07, 24 December 2006 (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.

PATCO 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion of all. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These templates have been superseded by s-rail and s-line. All article-space transclusions replaced. --Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant, superseded, not used in articlespace.. time to dump it. Perel 07:44, 22 December 2006 (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:LACMTA 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 page.

The result of the debate was deletion. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template has been superseded by s-rail and s-line. --Mackensen (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as indeed, it is orphaned. -Patstuart^talk|edits 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Darn it, I just made it work with paser functoins. Oh well. Delete anyway. Hbdragon88 20:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chairman S. ^Talk_Contribs 23:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Yep, Delete. No reason to keep this around. Perel 07:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wizardman 06:15, 26 December 2006 (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:Androcentric

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 speedy delete Patstuart^talk|edits 01:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unused; inflammatory and polemic (I've tagged for csd as well) Patstuart^talk|edits 15:26, 21 December 2006 (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:ProjectADF

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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated banner of a project that was merged into WP:AUSMIL; no longer in use. Kirill Lokshin 02:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk _Contribs 11:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and unused. Perel 07:45, 22 December 2006 (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:Casualties of the PKK conflict

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. RyanG e rbil10(Упражнение В!) 00:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreadable, unused, unuseful, sourced from a completely unreliable website (http://www.pkkgercegi.net), all sources in Turkish giving no option for verification. - Francis Tyers · 12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is is an Easytimeline (graphical time) which is part of wikipedia, and Francis Tyers may not know what easytimelines are and how they are part of the main article, such as the time line of Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. Easytimeline shows the items as wiki links to the other articles (citations comes from other articles and also the events are sourced from the same events listed in Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict).--OttomanReference 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: EasyTimelines [EasyTimeline], also Help:EasyTimeline syntax. Easy Timelines are graphical way to represent basic concepts of the issues regarding the articles. They are formed in the template space and are integral part of the main articles. Some examples Template:Timeline of the Roman Kingdom, Template:Timeline of the Roman Republic, and A MUST SEE one Template:Timeline of the Roman Empire. OttomanReference 15:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. - Francis Tyers · 12:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is. OttomanReference 14:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How in the world is this helpful? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 16:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Amarkov is not familiar with the Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict; the timeline is aimed to show the casualties (frequency and type) during the PKK organizational periods and linked to main regional and internal events. OttomanReference 17:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What matters isn't what it's aimed to do, what matters is what it does. And it does nothing useful. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 17:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What it does" A timeline is basically an educational tool and I guess, this subject matter is specialized and hard to understand by a layman. You have to give some effort. But thanks for your consideration. --OttomanReference 20:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could at least try not to be patronizing. And you do realize that encyclopedia articles are not written for experts, right? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Amarkov: this template is not usable in mainspace and cannot be cleaned up to be made usable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:V doesn't say the sources have to be in English. And coming from the outside on this, I actually found it quite informative. It'd be better if the EasyTimeline syntax allowed designating a bigger dot mark instead of the tiny lines for each event, but that the syntax isn't quite there to make it look nicer isn't a good reason to delete such a thoroughly documented, useful chart. Perel 07:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Amarkov.--Aldux 01:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several "Delete per nom" votes here. There are only two users presenting actual reasons for deletion. Of those, the nomination misconstrues WP:V. Quoting from the non-English sources section: However, foreign-language sources are acceptable in terms of verifiability, subject to the same criteria as English-language sources. This information is not available in an English-language source, it's only available in Turkish, and the only rationale presented for rejecting this source is that it's not in English. Per WP:V, this is *not* a reason to reject the source. The only other argument we have against it is that it's "not useful". I'd like a more detailed explanation of HOW it's "not useful", as I find it quite informative. Perel 03:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite frankly, it's not useful because it makes no sense. I'm sure someone with a thourough understanding of the type of charts used would, but Wikipedia is not written for specialists to understand. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 04:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite frankly, there are may "not useful" (my POV, no sense to me) articles in the Wikipedia, (such as Zbtb7, originally named Pokemon) but I had never consider them to be "Deleted" because I am not a biologist to understand. OttomanReference 16:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does it make no sense? I'm not a historian, and it made sense to me. Do we have style guidelines for charts that would cover this? Perel 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I believe representation of information (in charts, diagrams, etc) is part "Art" (some may not get it), however beyond that I really question the validity of this process. The idea of elimination of any form of information (deletion of the article), based on "...dable, unused, unuseful, sourc..." is questionable. Will we delete articles based on our perception, or like? If I think "E=mc2" or "civil war" is nonsense, will I and couple comrades get rid of that specific article, by voting? --OttomanReference 04:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this thing is a mess and I can't see how a timeline is an appropriate format for this. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Francis Tyers -- Karl Meier 10:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an article with a similar name: Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict. The template can add to the article, not take away from it. If there are WP:V issues about the events or the inclusion/exclusion of events, then there is the talk page of the template. "Useful", "not useful", "makes sense", "doesn't make sense", "we don't need it", "we need it" are not criteria for deletion. There has been a PKK conflict, and this is its timeline template. It can only add to Wikipedia, not take away from it. If there are issues in the template, use the talk pages :) Baristarim 02:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also would like to second User:Perel : non-English sources are not a criteria for deletion. Turkey is not a very rich country, and some of the stuff in the timeline refers to events that happened either before Internet was out of the lab, or when it was still in its infancy. It is not fair to demand full English-translated news casts or sources from the 80s to be found on the Internet. It is already a good thing that they are online to begin with. Please see systemic bias about this. The main arguments are a)sources are not in English b)we don't need it. They are not sufficient criteria for deletion. This is an understandable template created to make an article more informative. That's all. Baristarim 02:25, 29 December 2006 (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.