Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 31

< Misplaced Pages:Templates for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by B (talk | contribs) at 05:11, 1 January 2008 (→Template:Unaccredited: +cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:11, 1 January 2008 by B (talk | contribs) (→Template:Unaccredited: +cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< December 30	January 1 >

December 31

Template:Culture of China

Overly large, has too many unrelated areas, and the inclusion appears to be arbitrary. (The creator's edit summaries also suggest that the template was created to provoke.) --Nlu (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs for the latter, thanks. Shouldn't this template have first been proposed at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject China? Badagnani (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The first edit (which is undiffable) was with the edit summary of "Noo", and the second edit was with the edit summary of "what the f." Again, provocative. --Nlu (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, it has very broad inclusion, and, well, China is big. I think the template could benefit by being broken into four or five smaller templates, and having each one set up with multiple collapsible sections. bd2412 T 19:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC

Unrelated? It took me ages to go through the category sections to put it in a systematic order. Large? Have you seen other big templates out there? And I'm sure a template being "overly large" is not sufficient enough to be deleted just like that at least without any compromise. Lastly, how I am provoking and who am I provoking? Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 19:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please justify your edit summaries of "Noo" and "What the f." --Nlu (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - justify how? noo means new because it was a new template and what the f means what the fuck when i deleted a mistake/duplication i had previosly made. why don't you look at the changes I made to understand. Black Knight takes White Queen (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete, way too broad, way too large, we have enough of these templates already (I don't really care for Template:PRC topics either). I also find it strange for a supposedly new user to be creating a complicated template like this and adding it in mass scale on their first day. In any case it is redundant and unnecessary, and there is absolutely no template that should ever be this large. shoeofdeath (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Edit with a Poleaxe A template should be an aid to navigation, not a quagmire. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Sorry but this template is every item of every category combined. I can see the user is trying to help but this is too much. Is sad to see the work go to waste, but this template is too aggressive. If User:Black Knight takes White Queen have time and the expertise, we can use his skill elsewhere for other templates. Benjwong (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Could this not be reduced in size instead of being deleted? Shapiro-israel (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think so -- not the way it's structured. As it was written, the inclusion is so arbitrary that there is really nothing to cut down from. It'd be like a template of "villages in China" -- such a template would be thoroughly useless. --Nlu (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  - How about it being split into smaller-sized templates, with this one being reduced to 20 words, instead of said 20 sections. Shapiro-israel (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    - There would be no point in doing this, as this template is merely a collection of links which are redundant to the categories on every page. Users need only to click the category links at the bottom of each page (Category:History of China, Category:Chinese language, etc) to get to related articles. Templates should not be used for categorization. shoeofdeath (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
      - Take me, I don't want to go clicking through categories back and forth, I want a template right there to see an overview. Otherwise you can delete a whole load of other templates and where will you end. Shapiro-israel (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Preferably needs further trimming and reordering. I can't see any instances of provocative behavior, but if there is then the user should be reported and blocked. Keep it civil. Maork (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Unless you can explain exactly what to trim and reorder, please do not say strong keep. Benjwong (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Delete. The template is "way" too long and basically slapped a bunch of different topics from different templates together. It is an important topic, but perhaps an unnecessary template, since there are many of the similar kind already exists, and the contents in this one are already covered by other templates.--TheLeopard (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep. There are not size limits on templates. Gzli888 (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep: while the template is huge, that is a reason to fix it, not a valid reason for deletion. Snake66 (talk) 01:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

the argument for deletion is that there is no reasoable way to fix it. DGG (talk) 03:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Pokeinfoboxexplained

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 debate was move to Template:Pokémon species/doc (by User:RockMFR) and delete redirect (by User:BD2412). Non-admin closure. JPG-GR (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned; not sure if it duplicates the function of Template:Pokémon species, but it appears to be a primer explaining how to use the latter. Unnecessary. — bd2412 T 19:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

delete if anything, it should have been transcluded on {{Pokémon species}} as documentation; no need for a template. David Fuchs 19:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Move to Template:Pokémon species/doc. Actually, I'll go ahead and just do it. That was simple. --- RockMFR 00:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted the resulting redirect. bd2412 T 01:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

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:IPsock

This template seems to encourage violation of the Meta privacy policy and the Meta checkuser policy. Editors have a right to edit while not logged in, and there are valid reasons for doing so (for example, to divorce real-life identities from such controversial areas as WP:P*.) If a user is being disruptive with their IP address, this should be established via checkuser and the underlying IP blocked without disclosing it, per the above-mentioned Checkuser policy.

An example of a problematic usage of this template can be seen at this IP userpage, which apparently belongs to the IP address of a user (User:Jinxmchue) who is not banned or blocked. An administrator (User:FeloniousMonk) placed the template on the page, and the user apparently did not wish it there (as seen by their reversions of the template placement).

I'm afraid I can't see any legitimate usages of this template that don't run afoul of the Privacy and Checkuser policies.. Videmus Omnia 18:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I really don't like any of these templates for privacy reasons. If we would have the good sense to exclude user pages from search engines, it wouldn't matter, but as it is, we seem to be taking the position that if you are blocked/banned, we reserve the right to ruin your life by making the #1 google hit for your name/IP a page telling of your misdeeds. That said, this template should only be used if an IP is currently being used for block evasion, not as a permanent reminder. --B (talk) 21:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep: grudge filing Editing from an IP to evade a block is sock puppetry, identifying such accounts is warranted and necessary in order to minimize further disruption and has been a longstanding Misplaced Pages convention, see: Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Tagging. Privacy concerns voiced here a straw man, the editor given as an example identified these as his IPs prior to the template placement, and his IPs were tagged because he used one to evade a block of his main account: Blocked Editing Reblocked for evading 1st block Sadyly the motive for this TFD filing appears to have more to do with personal ax grinding and settling scores with factions; both parties above have palpable personal grudges against me and are currently working to undue the ban of the editor offered as an example while trying to ban parties related to me. Personal issues should not deprive the community of a necessary, uniform and simple means of identifying sock puppeteers who log out to evade bans and blocks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to the ban of the editor offered as an example? Videmus Omnia 02:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The diffs I provided show his 2 blocks. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a ban? I thought there was a difference between a block and a ban. Videmus Omnia 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Read Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Enforcing_bans A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Misplaced Pages. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. You also need to read Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Evasion_of_blocks, Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Blocking and Misplaced Pages:SOCK#Tagging. I don't think you are up to speed enough on these policies and guidelines enough to be TFD'ing longstanding templates like this and making the accusations at WP:AN/I you've made. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

None of the links you provide above justify violation of the Meta policies. I'm an admin on another project, and I've been a victim of sockpuppet idiocy before; trust me, I'm up to speed on the privacy policies involved. Videmus Omnia 02:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep per above.--Filll (talk) 02:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Keep Per FM. JinxMcHue is blocked, he avoided the block through anonymous IP's, stated he was avoiding the block in a blatant attempt to show off. This really is a grudge match. OrangeMarlin 04:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that we've had comments from Filll, Orangemarlin, and FeloniousMonk, we also need comments from Jim62sch, Guettarda, and JzG to complete the set. Videmus Omnia 04:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Unaccredited

This is a disclaimer template for tagging unaccredited schools and diploma mills that warns users, "its degrees and credits might not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions.". Misplaced Pages:No disclaimers in articles says that we do not use disclaimers. It is not Misplaced Pages's job to warn you that if you get a degree from a diploma mill that you deserve what you get. Also, when this template is applied to a particular school, it's drawing a conclusion about that school that (1) may be untrue and (2) constitutes original research. — B (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2 - blatant misrepresentation of established policy (No disclaimers in articles)Happy‑melon 18:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#T2, which is sufficient. (But see also WP:NOR). Ra2007 (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wow ... where did that CSD criterion come from? T2 used to be religious/political userboxes. --B (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
This is not a disclaimer template in the usual sense. Its current usages show that it is being used as a content template. However, it still seems like a horrible idea. Some of the usages are not sourced or are confusing. It also seems to run into problems with original research. In most cases, a Wikipedian is the one making the connection between "unaccredited" to "illegal, not acceptable". --- RockMFR 00:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep since the use of "unaccredited" s always sourced in such an article--and it most cases is taken fro mthe web page of the institution concerned--it is rarely OR> the question ofwhether it is applicable is an editing question in each individual case. DGG (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, but you're missing the point. Assume "XYZ university is unaccredited" is a source statement. "In some states, it can be illegal to use a degree from an institution that is not accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency, unless approved by the state licensing agency" is the text of the source given on this template. The application of these two facts "it may be illegal to use a degree from XYZ university" constitutes original research. In addition to being OR, it may be completely false unless it is known for a fact that it has not been "approved by the state licensing agency". Further, if the article lists people who hold degrees from the school in question, then, by inference, we are potentially accusing them of committing a crime, when in reality, we have no earthly idea whether or not the school has been "approved by the state licensing agency" or whether or not it is legal to use a degree from it. But regardless of all of that, we don't do disclaimers. It's not Misplaced Pages's job to warn you that this article describes something dangerous, that the breast article contains breasts, or that your diploma mill degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on. --B (talk) 05:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wookieepedia box

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as a temporary measure - we're still sorting out the Memory Alpha template on DRV, and a clear precedent from that would be useful in this. The template has now been orphaned, and I think we can leave it be for five or six days while we sort out the precedent then renominate it from there. But right now this seems an unhelpful expansion of the discussion, and the template is not doing any harm sitting around unused. Note that I have no issue whatsoever with this template being renominated once the Memory Alpha DRV closes, regardless of which way that DRV closes - but given that there is a discussion in progress on this exact issue, starting another one seems likely to cause confusion rather than generate a meaningful consensus. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This box is barely used (mostly in a few Star Wars novels, and Jedi). The plain text link, {{Sww}}, is much, much more widely used (290 pages in mainspace, vs. 10 for the box). Per the precedent of the similar {{Memory Alpha}} template, this should go too. Regardless of the opinions of using the boxes, consensus on the ground clearly favors a plain text link. Phirazo 03:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep I'm currently listing Template:Memory Alpha on WP:DRV. I'm also annoyed at the nom's tactic of trying to pick off these templates when efforts to use them again are being explored. There are even alternative versions in discussion that some people felt more comfortable with. Taking this to deletion is unnecessary, and is disrupting the natural evolution of the template. It should also be noted that the nom (User:Phirazo) likes to remove these templates from articles before nominating the template. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I boldly removed the template for consistency across the Star Wars articles and because it wasn't used. It was not restored until after the TfD for {{Memory Alpha}}. Instead of edit-warring over it, I took it to TfD. --Phirazo 04:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)