Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

May 2

[edit]
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was created, and thus far predominately placed, by User:Mistress Selina Kyle, who was blocked (for 6 months this time) for an overzealous "whistleblower" editing attitude. The only other placement of this was here, where a user was (arguably) engaged in an edit war over detailed environmental impact data, and used this tag to accompany his accusation that his opponents were industry insiders.

This template weighs on one POV, against corporate advocacy. We already have {{COI}} for when someone wants to voice concerns over any conflict of interest, and I think that's a much better option. I don't see any need for a special "corporate COI" tag, as this seems to be, and I foresee its primary use being misuse for its chilling effect in content disputes. Equazcion (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a better template may be:
-- Uzma Gamal (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current Template:WikiProject Cooperation ...
... seems similar. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 23:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProject Cooperation seems promotional, subjective, and, assuming that "has been improved" could be established as being true, it would be true only so long as no one else subsequently edited the article differently. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but substitute - The alternative template by Uzma Gamal is better. Factseducado (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd hold off on implementing such a replacement. The current discussions over the acceptability of paid editing seems to weigh heavily on this, and we shouldn't implement something like this until that question is settled. Note that the replacement tag above was suggested by a paid editor, which is itself a COI with this issue (appreciating that they pointed this out themselves). Equazcion (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

unused fancruft. 198.102.153.2 (talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Jepara Division 1 League (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no evidence of notability, this league is only youth, amateur, internal league for reserve team of cub Persijap Jepara *Annas* (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:52, 4 May 2012 (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.
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, but can be recreated once there are more articles. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Is this really necessary? Only two bluelinks. WP:NENAN. Jenks24 (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2012 (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.
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 Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Barcelona Metro/line list (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template is being used as a navbox but is completely redundant to the more standard Template:Barcelona Metro line navbox. See Barcelona Metro line 2 for example of both being used in the same article. Mackensen (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:02, 2 May 2012 (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.