Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 18
June 18, 2006
Template:CategorisationDisputedTopics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This created by Jim Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) apparently with the aim of casting doubt on the accuracy of category:Pseudoscience (which already carries a note saying that adherents to pseudoscience often dispute it), because it seems he is a wee bit into alternative "medicine". It is pointless, and not needed since any discussion of whether foo deserves to go into a category should be done at talk:foo. — Dunc|☺ 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete -- a.) the template brings nothing to the party, b.) single-use templates (or those designed for same) have as much legitimacy as using herbs to "cure" cancer (unless the village Shaman prepares the herbs using Nostradanus' recipes, of course). •Jim62sch• 21:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - it isn't useful. There's no way to determine which topics are disputed, so it's useless to readers. And since it isn't visible to editors of the articles (unless they have the cats on their watchlist), it doesn't serve to improve the article. Guettarda 23:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Infobox athlete turned model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Only used in Megumi Kawamura. Of doubtful usefulness at best. Circeus 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Use the model infobox instead and place the info about the model's former team on the page itself in prose form.--SomeStranger(t) 17:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:BBArticleSpoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Not used, since Template:BbSpoiler is used.-- 9cds(talk) 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I made this template as I thought it was more appropriate for the article I put it on, but as it isn't being used, it may as well be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JD UK (talk • contribs)
- Template:Bibleref (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Template:Bibleverse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Both of these are being used to create external links to bible verses instead of to Wikisource Trödel 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC) ~and? Not everyone, aka most people do not, approve of the wikisource bible version(s).SF2K1
- Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 04:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: The amount of pages that would be affected by this delete is enourmous. What do we intend to replace it with?--SomeStranger(t|c) 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree, there seems to be a lot of pages that now have links to this discussion and would have to be edited. Wouldn't it be easier to edit the template to point at wikisource instead? Superbeatles 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and do not edit to point to wikisource Wikisource currently only has the King James Version and World English Bible. Bibleref and Bibleverse provide the ability to neutrally link to over 40 different versions (including some non-english versions), and in many cases allow the reader to alternate to a version of their choice. The Bibleref and Bibleverse templates currently link to the New International Version (which is one of the most religiously neutral versions available from those that the template is currently able to link to) by default, or to specified versions where given (e.g. the Youngs Literal Translation, where it is important to give this specific translation due to the discussion involved). Deliberately favouring the KJV and WEB over the many other versions is a highly religiously motivated stance (see King James Only Movement for example). Clinkophonist 15:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Further Comment I've just noticed that the nominator edits a lot in articles related to Mormonism, a religious group with an affinity for the King James Only Movement, and I would hazard a guess that this nomination is a bad faith attempt to assert the King James Only POV. Clinkophonist 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
merge both in {{bibleverse}} as voted in May Although the template was mistakenly removed from the Holding cell, instances of its use were never actually converted.Circeus 17:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)- {{Bibleverse}} is {{Bibleverse}}, while {{Bibleref}} is not the old {{Bibleref}} but a shorthand form of {{Bibleverse}} like {{Bibleverse-nb}}. Clinkophonist 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then delete {{bibleref}}. Unneeded fork. Circeus 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- {{Bibleverse}} is {{Bibleverse}}, while {{Bibleref}} is not the old {{Bibleref}} but a shorthand form of {{Bibleverse}} like {{Bibleverse-nb}}. Clinkophonist 17:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Template:Monopoly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The Monopoly template was just a copy of the London game board layout of the board game Monopoly, copied from the Monopoly (game) page. I considered the template name to be too generic, moved the content to Template:LondonMonopolyBoard, and made the necessary change in the article. Nothing now links to Template:Monopoly; it could be deleted. JohnDBuell 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think this belongs in redirects for deletion. Not sure though...(Delete just in case)--SomeStranger(t|c) 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oh valid point, I didn't see that we HAD a Redirects for Deletion section now. If someone would like to move it, feel free. --JohnDBuell 02:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)