Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 19

< January 18	January 20 >

January 19

Template:Future article talk page and User:BigNate37/TM/Future article talk page and Template:Futureart

WP:NOT - Wikipedia IS NOT a crystal ball. I've noticed one instance where the template is being abused to spam the site. Talk:Howitshouldhaveended.com --Kind Regards - Heligo land 14:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I'm going to wipe most of the pages it's on under CSD#G8 as an end-run around policy. >Radiant< 15:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - orphaned talk pages of articles that do not exist are not permitted per WP:SPEEDY, and this is too open to abuse. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit - Looks to be an end run around WP:RA. Many (most? all?) of the Talk pages that were using this appeared to be blatant advertising, which would have been caught if they had been exposed to the normal scrutiny at Requested Articles. Fan-1967 15:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to stop the user keeping a scratchpad in their user space for this kind of stuff. Spartaz 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serve no useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia, and is as pointed out an end run and invitation to adverts. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot it with a shotgun. -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t)_{03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Template:Birth date and age23

Delete template for people born on May 26, 1982. The name of the template is longer than the data itself. --TomTheHand 12:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant and not the best template anyway. Tellyaddict 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Birth date and age24
Template:Birth date and age24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete template for people born on May 26, 1982. The name of the template is longer than the data itself. --TomTheHand 12:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above template. Tellyaddict 17:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:EP patent
Template:EP patent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:UK patent
Template:UK patent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:JP patent
Template:JP patent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:CA patent
Template:CA patent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:AU patent
Template:AU patent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant due to Template:Cite patent and not used. Could delete entirely or redirect to Cite patent --GDallimore 10:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Edcolins 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom (Template:Cite patent exists in template's 'stead). Secondly, template is redundant - doesn't transclude onto any pages. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 00:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Road bicycle racer infobox
Template:Road bicycle racer infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template is deprecated by Cyclist infobox. It is not used in any pages. --Mk3severo 09:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:NoMoreLinks
Template:NoMoreLinks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It is redundant, as a variation of the spam templates (there are many spam templates). Also, it is an eye-sore. +mwtoews 05:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And ironically, it's linkspam for DMOZ. Delete. >Radiant< 09:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- DMOZ is our friend in spam cleanup. We go into a spammy article, delete all the spam links and then tell everyone "Take it to DMOZ" and add a DMOZ link. DMOZ is not just officially sanctioned but encouraged by WP:EL. This approach reduces the hassles of arguing over a lot of marginal or even spammy links one by one. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not intended to be pretty, and it should be an "eye-sore" so pottential spammers notice it, the template was created for a specific purpose, it's creation was announced and disscussed at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jul#New template needed? and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jul#Template:NoMoreLinks created WikiProject Spam talk pages. No other template serves the same purpose. A simillar template ([1]) has been in extensive use on the Polish wikipedia (the 4 largest) for over a year and I do not remmember anyone complaining about it's use. Keep Mieciu K 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it's not actually redundant as far as I can tell. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- many articles have too many inappropriate links yet none are really spam; the language of {{cleanup-spam}} is too perjorative for those situations (but just right for others, so please don't go deleting it too). --A. B. ^(talk) 16:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Duhh -- I mixed this up with {{External links}}. Still useful. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep definatly serves a useful purpose in certain circumstances. --Hu12 16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: very useful template. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 18:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kill dmoz spam, but keep per all above. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, serves a useful purpose, and goodness knows we get too many linkspammers these days. Might head off at least some of them. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:MultiLicensePD
Template:MultiLicensePD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is an inherent contradiction. People have the right to put their Wikipedia contributions in the public domain. This still allows Wikipedia to distribute articles under the GFDL. However, it is illogical to actively say that you are both putting your contributions into the public domain and licensing them under the GFDL. You can only put copyrighted work under the GFDL, and public domain work is not copyrighted. Superm401 - Talk 04:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If you license into the public domain, you lose all rights to the work, including the right to put it under GFDL protection. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is quite possibly the most ridiculous nomination I have ever seen. I recommend everyone who doesn't understand the concept of multiple licensing and copyright and every related issue to actually research it, as I am not going to go into detail here. The nominator's reasons seem logical, but are factually incorrect. --- RockMFR 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further explanation- this is how I understand the situation: releasing something under the public domain isn't a strong action legally speaking. It's debatable whether something can be released under the public domain at all. So, when multi-licensing, it should state that the user is releasing their work under the GFDL and the "more free" license, so if the other license does not hold up legally, the GFDL acts as a fallback. The situation is quite complicated and I'm probably getting some details wrong, but this is essentially how I see it. --- RockMFR 03:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, releasing things in the public domain is not a license. There's altready a PD tag, right? -- Chris is me _{(u/c/t)_{04:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]
Template:MultiLicenseImagePD
Template:MultiLicenseImagePD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per #Template:MultiLicensePd Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:MultiLicenseMinorPD
Template:MultiLicenseMinorPD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Per #Template:MultiLicensePd Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:VaughanWatch
Template:VaughanWatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This is like giving the vandal his very own spotlight, which is pretty unneccesary. You can just use {{Sockpuppet}} alternatively, and it will still work out okay. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 09:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - We've been over this before with the long term vandal page, and it was decided that these tools are necessary. VaughanWatch has a very specific modus operandi and it's important that we keep track of his socks, rather than just lumping them in with all the others. -- Chabuk ^{[ T • C ]} 14:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia already has a template about sockpuppets, so it doesn't really need another one, although it could be useful but it looks doubtful. Tellyaddict 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep VaughanWatch is a serial offender, and has repeatedly made personal attacks against other Wikipedians. The argument that we're "giving him a spotlight" doesn't really hold water; he's not an attention-seeker like Willy on Wheels, but an obsessive vandal with a personal axe to grind. CJCurrie 23:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody has yet given a reason why the standard sockpuppet template can't be used. This does nothing that it does not do. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 00:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone makes a very good case for why the standard sock template is insufficient, in which case I will reconsider my position - and be very surprised. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Template:?
Is a pretty useless template, can't think of one reason why we should have this template. Kamope · talk · contributions 23:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Um... what? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 00:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? I mean, Delete. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of articles uses this template, the clean up would be immense! There is no real use to delete it, it serves a great purpose for all Comparison and Table articles! --[Svippong - Talk] 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um... no it doesn't. If so many articles use it, it's a pointless addition to server load to save typing six characters. -Amark moo! 02:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Server load? You don't think it calls the template each time some visits a page with the template? Only when the page is updated or when the template is updated, these parts are updated. And since this template is so rarely updated, I wouldn't assume server load being any problem. It's just a bad excuse for doing something unnecessary! --[Svippong - Talk] 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if I may add, this is not just about saving typing characters, this is about keeping a standard for all articles. --[Svippong - Talk] 02:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, an addition to my argument: Take a look at this article, notice the use of this template. Why? To keep a standard. Now with the deletion tag on it, it screws up the entire article! As an addition, if you delete it, someone will just recreate it again, because it makes sense to have. --[Svippong - Talk] 02:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you mean by keeping a standard. It is a question mark. -Amark moo! 02:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even such simple things as a question mark can be kept in standard layout. The bold italic question mark should be generic for all articles using it, so it doesn't change shape. The exact reason for almost all other templates! You have yet to give a concrete argument against it. Cause I have yet to see any. --[Svippong - Talk] 03:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's just another template that could be vandalised, or could need an admin to protect, if a template really isn't needed, let's not waste resources and leave another way to vandalise open to the vandals please. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 03:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the desire to have a consistent style, and its current use in table cells. It seems a logical way to help enforce the standard. Technically, it could be fully-protected, as it wouldn't ever change, so vandalism wouldn't be a problem (though I'm not familiar with the exact policies of full-protection, so it might not be eligible?). The only concern, is whether a 1-letter template that displays a 11-letter character string, is a resource problem (thinking of things like the template limit, which at 2mb shouldn't be a problem).
On the other hand, I think the 11-character '''''?''''' stands out better visually in the wiki-code, and so might be easier for users to locate and edit. We'd just need to add a line to the MOS somewhere stating that it is the style to use, and make occasional corrections. --Quiddity 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]