Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 1 June 3 >

June 2

Template:Super Smash Bros. series

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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. IronGargoyle 02:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | links | watch | logs
)

Template is repetitive because the template for SSB characters also lists the games in the series. - myselfalso 23:57, 2 June 2007 (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.

Template:Religious persecution

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 page.

The result of the debate was keep. IronGargoyle 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Religious persecution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Persecution is never a fact. Entire template is POV. There is no way to replace this with a NPOV template as the very concept is POV. Please delete. — Fourdee 20:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Persecution is easily sourceable as encyclopedic fact and is therefore not POV. Useful template and no reason to delete it as tfd appears based on a misconception of what persecution is re our NPOV policy,
    SqueakBox 20:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep If there are articles named "persecution of xyz", then there should be no problem with this template either. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; however, this template probably does need to be shrunk or something. It covers too many topics right now. -Amarkov moo! 21:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The template itself is not POV as it is a navigational list to articles on the subject. However the articles listed on the template may be POV if they are not properly sourced to reliable third-party sources. --Farix (Talk) 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that persecution is often a topic with strong points of view on either side does not necessarily mean that articles about it cannot be made
    neutral. This template purports only to allow navigation through such articles. --Haemo 23:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Template is serving a useful purpose. People can read the details in the articles themselves. nadav (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is persecution POV? If someone dies for their religion, how can you say it's not a fact? --JDitto 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't want the template to be removed just the
    original research
    removed. I have edited the template and removed words unless they are in the article title or in the leader paragraphs. Anyone using any other wording that they pick from their own personal view or from deep in the article is doing a bit of original research to push their point of view by presenting a minor view. I have removed the heading "By persecuting group" and split it into three,
  • Notable events:
  • Historical perspectives:
  • Contemporary perspectives:
How do we know things are "Notable" - simply because they describe some event (rather than a place or person) and have a Wikipedia article, how do we know something is historical ?, simply because it says that in the title and how do we know something is contemporary ? - it doesn't have historical in the title or it's talking about recent times. Hopefully this'll be a better approach. Ttiotsw 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The direction Ttiotsw took it seems right, now it just uses the article names, so I can't see how this is POV. --Merzul 10:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sick of having to read the history of religion as a history of religious persecution. God really must have turned his back on man if people have enforced their beliefs only through violence. Especially in cases where my research into this question shows that the facts and their analysis are not vindicable at all, in the case of
    Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs is more relaxing than this. Zara1709 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Then your problem is with the articles, and not the template. The template itself is fine. --Farix (Talk) 17:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the problem is also with the template, as it gives undue focus on religious persecution. For the
    Historical persecution by Christians article I very much rather have the Christianity-template than the religious persecution one. There could probably be a small template regarding religious persecution in the article then, too, but the present religious persecution template could really be deleted. -Zara1709 10:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. This template is as 'POV' as an article regerring to suicide bombing as terrorism. 85.73.217.146 04:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep needless nomination. Useful, used, and necessary. Jmlk17 07:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Religious persecution is encyclopedic and can be documented. Some articles may be highly controversial but that is a problem with the topics not with the template. --Richard 00:40, 6 June 2007 (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.

Template:Solution and Template:Endsolution

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete both. IronGargoyle 02:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Solution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Endsolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After removing all instances where these templates were redundant to sections titled "Solution", only four instances of the former remain in article space and none for the latter. In all four cases, the template can be removed with some rewriting/reorganizing of the contents. --Farix (Talk) 16:53, 2 June 2007 (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.

Template:Magic-spoiler

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 page.

The result of the debate was

Avada Kedavra! ...err... delete. IronGargoyle 01:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Template:Magic-spoiler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

More of a disclaimer then a spoiler template. The template is a violation of the guideline at

Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates
. It is also redundant to sections titled "Method", "How it works" or other variations and can be removed from sections under those titles, or replaced with those section titles.

The creation of the template is not to warn readers before learning the secret of how a magic trick is performed, as is the case with spoiler warning templates. But it is mainly used as a reason why magicians should be removing the content about methods from article on magic or illusions, which doesn't really work. It also has the consequence of giving cover to turn these sections

original research. --Farix (Talk) 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

As a side note, I would also point out that similar redundancies uses the spoiler template are being eliminated. The only difference between those templates and this one is that after the redundancy is removed, there will be no further use of this template, where as there can still be spoilers in sections where the presence of spoilers is not implied. --Farix (Talk) 15:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This template went through a previous TfD at
    Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Not_deleted/July_2005#Template:Magic-spoiler
  • Delete I disagree that it is more a disclaimer than a spoiler warning. However, I think this template is more redundant than the usual spoiler warnings. First, because people visitors at a magic trick article are almost always looking to learn how it works. Secondly, I checked all the pages it's used on, and as the nom says, it is always used in sections bearing the name Method, Techniques of..., How to perform, How it works, or Explanation.
    WP:SPOILER specifically says not to use templates in such sections. So there will be no pages carrying the template after we remove the redundancies. nadav (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, can be replaced by meaningful section headers and is unencyclopedic. Kusma (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill with stick. Worse than the spoiler templates, which my disdain for is well known. There is no way to write an encyclopedic article on a magic trick that does not consistently engage with the historical development of the trick, which includes its method.
    Phil Sandifer 20:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete. What else could an article on a magic trick possibly contain? -Amarkov moo! 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's another glorified
    spoiler template with no real use. As explained above, it could be easily merged into the article much more neatly. --Haemo 23:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete No reason for this template whatsoever. Jmlk17 07:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is too a reason, to keep those people who are against exposure (like me) from unwillingly reading exposure. As for what can a article about an illusion contain: what it looks like, who invented it, famous uses, performances in media, reactions to it, all sorts of things
    Deflagro 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Make it bigger Everyone should have the choice to read only the non-exposing information about a trick. 87.91.98.215 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately, I don't get even get the point of the template. If you are looking at an encyclopedia page about a magic trick, aren't you wanting to see how the trick is done (I personally do). Therefore, I fully endorse the deletion per this and especially per Amarkov. Evilclown93 20:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poof! Needless template. CattleGirl talk | sign! 06:23, 9 June 2007 (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.

Template:China Squad 1998 Summer Olympics

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 page.

The result of the debate was Delete Template:China Squad 1998 Summer Olympics, Keep Template:Hong Kong 08 Squad. IronGargoyle 01:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:China Squad 1998 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Hong Kong 08 Squad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overwhelming concensus against templates for non-WorldCup national squads. — Neier 11:23, 2 June 2007 (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.

Template:Nobel prize longevity

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 page.

The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by User:Stephen [1] Gavia immer (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nobel prize longevity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The linked pages were all deleted as part of an AfD. Delete please.

itchy 03:01, 2 June 2007 (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.

Template:Infobox JTA Skyway station

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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. IronGargoyle 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox JTA Skyway station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Only large

Infobox Station}}. — Dream out loud 00:36, 2 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_2&oldid=1138691734"