Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 22

< August 21	August 23 >

August 22

Template:Samurai Shodown character links

This appears to be an external link spamming template that is used to link to this site about the game. It seems to be intended for use in all Samurai Shodown character articles. If external links were justified in this I would say use external links, but a template to do so is really unnecessary. --Cyde Weys 22:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it links to the official snkp page, and helps keeping consistency intact, it also helps in case of changes in the official page urls. It's there simply to reduce the redundancy. --2dMadness 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at the very least it is the official site on the article's subject matter, so does it hurt anything to leave it?--Kung Fu Man 00:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason it can't just be done normally in the external links section like 99.9% of other external links out there? Just because we can use a template for something doesn't mean we should. And I would most definitely want to nip in the bud any possible trend of new templates to handle external links in any of thousands of articles. --Cyde Weys 00:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry but I don't understand what do you mean by "trend" I just did what I felt was better, I have to edit something like 30 pages, just to add links, and knowing snkp, they'll change the url by adding or removing some trivial detail every now and then, so why should I undergo this hassle again if a template is enough to deal with it? Speaking of which, a simple personal talk with me would have resolved this issue in half the time. --2dMadness 01:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just copy over links from an existing article when needed. -- nae'blis 00:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete substitute the template and then delete it; we don't need to keep a template for managing external links for such a small scale. You can use linksearch to find external links to update. --Kevin_b_er 03:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Glasgow Anniesland (Scottish Parliament constituency)/meta/shortname

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Election box MSPs elected

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Scottish electoral region elected

I created this tempate for use in election boxes but it is not used nor is it going to be used. Bob 21:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Swift 22:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TotallyDisputed

I moved this from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TotallyDisputed, since that was in the wrong deletion category, nominator post was:

Delete - This template is the lazy man's way to question an article. We already have plenty of templates to tag for tone and neutrality, and we have the {{fact}} tag that should be used instead to question a fact. Wjhonson 23:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, some articles have numerous disputes, in both neutrality and accuracy, no point in having {{dubious}} and {{fact}} after lots of statements statements.Polonium 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium Cinik 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium --Aristovoulos 18:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium --Bob 18:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Polonium Porfyrios 20:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. —Khoikhoi 22:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The purpose of this template is to reduce template clutter in cases where an article's neutrality and accuracy are disputed. What looks better, this:

...or this (ignoring the TFD tag)?

Template:TotallyDisputed

szyslak (t, c, e) 05:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Polonium and Szyslak. User:Angr 15:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per points above. --WillMak050389 16:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are legitimate uses. Addhoc 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User wikipedia

I understand that in the past this may have included some code for such things as admin status, but we have other templates for that now. The text content of this userbox is, simply, "This user is a member of Wikipedia." We're all members of Wikipedia, therefore this template is redundant and utterly pointless. Delete. kingboyk 14:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I understand your point, but humor is the reason it exists. It's obvious that everyone's a member of Wikipedia! It's just funny to state that in our user pages! Keep. 'FL a RN' (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but userfy, I agree with Flarn2005, just a joke, and there are plenty of joke userboxes out there, why delete this one specifically? --WillMak050389 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get the joke. I'm sure, in fact, this isn't a joke, as it's a formerly useful template (e.g. "this user is an admin") which now has no useful content whatsoever ("this user is a member of Wikipedia"). It's not enyclopedic, and AFAIC it's not funny. --kingboyk 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's just a joke, as a statement of the obvious, just like {{User Earthling}}. --WillMak050389 15:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Statement of the obvious?" Somewhere, deep inside Area 51, an alien is deeply offended. --Chris (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "member" of Wikipedia is meaningless; you can be an editor, an administrator, a bureaucrat, a "member" of the board (albeit of Wikimedia Foundation, not WP), but being a "member" of Wikipedia implies we're some sort of club. Factionalizing and obscure; may consider if a suitably trenchant rewording can occur. -- nae'blis 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That's it Nae'blis! This template is a statement of our non-inclusion in the editor, administrator, bureaucrat or "member" of the board clubs. Page Up 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? You're not an editor? -- nae'blis 18:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really necessary. I'm not too sure why I have it on my user page! --Alex ^{talk here} 18:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at least use the German userbox solution). I can't see the joke either, contrary to the joke boxes cited, but what's more, I think this could have the bad effect of non-members thinking they are entitled to a userpage which they then use for advertisement, webspace and whatever else you can do to abuse the userspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not funny and pointless. violet/riga (t) 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per violet/riga --Bob 18:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GUS it. --Chris (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nae'blis, I actually like the redundancy of this template, but it's really too vague to work out. –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with WillMak. What's wrong with a joke? Earth KING ^(Talk) 20:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Perhaps Wikipedia should have more funny things on it (the briefs are actually pretty funny, just not quite what the project is about). --Swift 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or GUS along with the rest of these boxes. There is nothing wrong with a joke and there is nothing saying you can't put up a small box on your page without that being a template. The template existance says less about the transcluder's humor than his unoriginality and lack of imagination. --Swift 22:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reywas92 22:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy - I seriously question the usefulness of stating a tautology. --Cyde Weys 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some user boxes are funny, some are not. Some are serious, some are not. Some find humor in some, some dont!. There is no harm in keeping userboxes free of personal attacks/hate messages/etc. I dont think we need to have a debate to see if its encyclopedic or not, if its useful or not, after all they are used in User namespace not in article space. So I say keep it. --Oblivious 23:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The transclusions are, indeed, in user space, but the templates themselves are in the template namespace. Read WP:GUS for the German compromise. --Swift 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider rewriting to "This user is a Wikipedia editor" or somesuch, since I agree with Nae'blis about the use of 'member'. Still, it's funny as is (by way of being a statement of the obvious). CameoAppearance 23:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word editor is equally redundant. By virtue of adding the userbox, the user is an editor (at least of his own userpage). It isn't informative and in no way furthers the Wikipedia project. --Swift 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, all of those templates are still under the main User wikipedia template. See Template:User wikipedia/Administrator and Template:User wikipedia/Anti-Administrator. So keep because those still exist. Hbdragon88 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Would that everyone actually considered themselves a true Wikipedian. --NThurston 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]