Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Template:Brink[edit]

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 discussion was Deleted - largely redundant to {{ArticleHistory}}, which already chronicles an article's progress effectively. Unneeded. --—Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Brink (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To me this looks very much like a template created in order to make some sort of point. Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless. Articles are nominated for deletion. Good. Articles get deleted. Good. Articles get created. Good. Articles get improved. Good. This template is imperfectly conceived and applied. It is designed for an article talk page when its real purpose is to act as some sort of self congratulatory badge for an editor. Wrong space and wrong purpose. Give the editor a barnstar and move on Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete per nom. This is either a misguided effort or a pointy effort; in either event, it fails in my eyes. --23:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep It is not good that potential GAs are nominated for deletion and it is helpful to track such worrying incidents. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a simple inoffensive template that shows the process of improving wiki is alive and well. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – same as the other template. Redundant to {{ArticleHistory}}, which accounts for AfDs when GimmeBot updates the template after the article is promoted to GA. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I am the author of this item. Fiddle faddle has targeted four items of mine today:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_25#Template:Rescued (directly below)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Rescued_articles_advanced_to_Good_Article_status
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Deleted_article_recreated_and_advanced_to_Good_Articles_Class
In all four cases Fiddle Faddle sites no policy. The one policy he does site, WP:POINT he admits that this item does not fall within it. Also the full title of WP:POINT is, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" how is this item disrupting wikipedia? the only disruption of Wikipedia I see is this deletion nomination? In one of the item deletion discussions, he calls other editors contributions "trash".[1] This is simply a WP:IDONTLIKE deletion. Ikip (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment they are not "items of yours", they are released under the GFDL licence. You simply created them in what is, in my view, mistaken ardour to make, as I have said, some sort of point. I view them as entirely counter productive to the project and have so nominated them. They will stand or fall on their merits. You seem to be an expert at twisting words to seek to make a point, so let us be clear. We delete trash. That is what we do with it. I make no apology for calling deletion fodder "trash", for that is what it is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still no policy reasons. Ikip (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may wikilawyer as much as you like. It is not up to me to proviode policy reasons. I have nominated the template and other items for deletion. Others can validate whether my nomination is valid or not and we will reach a consensus. This is not a question of scoring nit picking little points off people, it is a question of whether the community, the body that keeps or deletes items, feels this should be kept or deleted. I note that you have an abiding love of rescuing articles. Good. I also rescue what I believe to be rescuable. And I nominate for deletion those where I do not believe, currently, there is a chance of saving them. Sometimes they are deleted, sometimes not. Also Good. Now please cease nit picking. !Your items will either go or stay. Either is fine because the community will decide, not you and not me. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for policy reasons for the deletion, is not a personal attack. Ikip (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question Can anyone provide any policy or guidelines to support the deletion of this item? Thus far I have heard a lot of "shoulds", and "i think", but this entire debate has been devoid of any policy or guidelines. I have asked the nominator repeatedly to provide any policy or guidelines to back up this WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, and I have not gotten a response. The only policy mentioned is WP:POINT, which the nominator says "Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless." Not a Point? Ikip (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy-pasting comments from one XfD to another is bad form, especially as in this case the problem has already been highlighted. Point 2 of WP:TFD#Reasons to delete a template is "the template is redundant to a better-designed template". {{ArticleHistory}} is a broadly-deployed alternative to this template which allows for significant additional detail. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fiddle Faddle and user:thumperward. Soapboxing is all this template does that is not already covered by Template:ArticleHistory. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointy template. Also because it is redundant to other templates. A good article should have that template, and an article that had an AfD with a keep result should have that template. Themfromspace (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and inferior to {{ArticleHistory}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't matter why articles get improved to GA. There are dozens of reasons, and none of them are better than the others to deserve/need a template. – sgeureka t•c 22:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's great that you saved an article and brought it up to respectability, but just use Template:ArticleHistory and leave it at that... anything else seems to be self-congratulatory. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:14, 2 March 2009 (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:Rescued[edit]

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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rescued (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

To me this looks very much like a template created in order to make some sort of point. Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless. Articles get deleted. Good. Articles get created. Good. The relationship between a deleted article and one created later is tenuous in the extreme. Often the only connection is the name. So this type of article is not in the slightest way notable, and articles gathered within it are in it by coincidence. Let us consign this template to oblivion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whatever his original purpose was, the user who created this seem intend in whipping up drama - I just see this as another example of that. The category itself is meaningless because many of the recreated articles will have nothing to do with the deleted originals - completely misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, best to seperate message and messenger. Being able to show that that an article, no matter how it might have differed from its original version, can and had been improved acts to strengthen the entire project. It is those differences that make it a winner. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I am the creator of this template, I was attempting to recognize editors who save articles. The nominator admits that this template does not fall under WP:POINT there is no other policy reason that is mentioned. Ikip (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "admits" is an interesting word to use. It sounds as if I am being tried and found wanting. I stated it, I did not admit. I stated it to be fair and to explain it with precision. As for recognising editors, this is not done in article talk pages. Are we turning this from an encyclopaedia into a politically correct school where you get a prize for turning up? Give them a barnstar and move on. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the first time, please cite policy then, because thus far, you have cited none. Thus far, this is a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKE argument. Where does it state that: "As for recognising editors, this is not done in article talk pages". Okay, so why didn't you ask me to move this item to another page first, as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? Isn't this nomination, ignoring possible other venues which could be tried before, much more disruptive than the item you are attempting to delete in the first place? On one of the other four AfDs you created targeting my contributions:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_25#Template:Brink
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Rescued_articles_advanced_to_Good_Article_status
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Deleted_article_recreated_and_advanced_to_Good_Articles_Class
...you call other editors contributions "trash",[2] are the four good article status articles in this category still "trash"? Isn't calling other editors contributions "trash" disruptive and uncivil, as you have accused other editors of being? Thus far you have stated that "Not a WP:POINT sort of point" which admits this does not fall within WP:POINT, what part of WP:POINT does this violate? Also the full title of WP:POINT is, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" how is this item disrupting wikipedia? the only disruption of Wikipedia I see is this deletion nomination. Ikip (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the more you twist and manipulate my words to attempt to make some sort of argument against me the more I find that these two templates and two categories that you created, walk, quack and act like the duck they are. Your points are very persuasive, and are all persuasive against your case. I am not going to argue against you everywhere. I don't much care about the outcome of this as long as consensus holds good, That will go either for keep or delete. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would just like some sort of policy reason to back up this deletion nomination. Thus far you have provided none. Ikip (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't be bothered to answer the same nit picking thing everywhere. The community will decide. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recording significant details of an article's history is a common use of article talk pages and this template assists in this. The nomination's claim that there is often no connection between articles of the same name seems fanciful and indicates that the nomination is itself pointed. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you should actually read WP:POINT. Much is to do with disruptive behaviour. Your remark is decidedly lacking in civility, though it had what one might refer to as "a degree of cleverness.". It should be withdrawn. If you genuinely feel I have trangressed, seek to have me blocked. Otherwise withdraw. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, isn't calling other editors contributions "trash" much more of a WP:Civil violation? Before condemning other editors for alleged civility violations, I would suggest watching your own behavior first. Ikip (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We delete trash. I hope very much this template will also be deleted. along with the other three items similarly nominated. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With respects to the nom, being able to show any reader that an article was improved and saved from untimely deletion improves wikipedia, thus undescoring a process that strengthens the project. A simple and inoffensive template that shows that the processes that improve wikipedia DO work, strengthens the project as a whole. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – pointless and redundant. If the article is improved to GA, then the AfD will be recorded in {{ArticleHistory}} automatically when GimmeBot updates the template. As such, there is no use for this. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. {{ArticleHistory}} already exists for the purpose of detailing the revision quality; the template implies that "rescuing" an article is some separate concept to simply overwriting a previously-deleted article which the author may not even have ever seen. Pretty obviously written for the purpose of making a point about deletion and "rescue", along with its sister templates and categories. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General question Can anyone provide any policy or guidelines to support the deletion of this item? Thus far I have heard a lot of "shoulds", and "i think", but this entire debate has been devoid of any policy or guidelines. I have asked the nominator repeatedly to provide any policy or guidelines to back up this WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, and I have not gotten a response. The only policy mentioned is WP:POINT, which the nominator says "Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless." Not a Point? Ikip (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Replied at the copy-pasted version of this comment at #Template:Brink. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Fiddle Faddle and Cameron Scott. Sorry to repeat myself, but this has the same problem as Template:Brink: already covered by {{ArticleHistory}}, except the soapboxing, which is not an improvement. WP:BARNSTARs for whomever brings the article to encyclopedic standards; no need to fill the Talk page with historical monuments to Great Editors Who Came Before. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pointy template. An article's previous state should have no bearing on its present one. Themfromspace (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant and inferior to {{ArticleHistory}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with same rationale as above: It's great that you saved an article and brought it up to respectability, but just use Template:ArticleHistory and leave it at that... anything else seems to be self-congratulatory. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merging into {{ArticleHistory}} as a miscellaneous item. I'm a bit conflicted as I see the same problem as with the recognizing "top rescuers" - the rescue project only facilitates a percentage of saves. Many articles are indeed rescued without anyone rattling our collective cage. Arguably some of those have also gone to be good articles as well. Without a massive effort to find articles that were rescued - which would include delineating what a rescue is - we may never know. Certainly a list of rescued articles that have advanced to the Good Article state would be commendable at the project level but I don't see it helping on talk pages as a separate template. A merge would be fine and supplement with a list at the project. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging doesn't work like that for templates. Even as a redirect it wouldn't have the desired effect. Every instance of the template is on an article with {{ArticleHistory}} anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My meaning was that the {{ArticleHistory}} template should be tweaked to add a rescued parameter thus actually fulfilling the stated needs here. This likely would also result in the ability to have a bot collate those articles that have been rescued and gone up the quality scale based on the use of such parameters. -- Banjeboi 11:06, 5 March 2009 (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:Movie ratings eng[edit]

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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Movie ratings eng (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template and redundant to Template:Infobox movie certificates, which, itself, is also nominated for deletion. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2009 (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.

Three redundant unused conversion templates[edit]

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 discussion was Delete. Happy‑melon 17:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NM to km (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
{{nm to km}} (redirect page)
Template:Km to NM (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
{{km to nm}} (redirect page)
Template:Km3 to mi3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

These three templates are not used in the main space. They are not appropriate for use since the linking cannot be turned off. The linking problem could be fixed but they are redundant to {{convert}}. I propose that they and their redirect pages be deleted. JIMp talk·cont 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:11, February 25, 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_25&oldid=1088714407"