< October 26 October 28 >

October 27

Template:Infobox Family Guy Season 7

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Family Guy Season 7 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Season seven won't be for over half a year. There are countless events that could cause those episodes to be canceled, even renamed until then. TheBlazikenMaster 17:57, 27 October 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:IPhone Data Plan

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPhone Data Plan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First of all, there is no reason for this information to be in a template as it is only used in one article. Secondly, the information contained in this template is not suitable for an encyclopedia as Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. — PaulC/T+ 16:50, 27 October 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:Geolocation

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geolocation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Apparently obsolete and no longer used anywhere. The Anome 11:56, 27 October 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.

NFL Pro Bowl templates

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 to keep. Valid concept for a navbox, and having to add a few lines of code in the far future is not obtrusive. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:2007 Pro Bowl NFC starters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These templates are redundant with the roster sections of 2007 Pro Bowl. If allowed to proliferate, the end of the Bruce Matthews article would be quite obtrusive (to say nothing about the All-star equivalents for basketball or baseball).

Comment: Actually on second thought, this might be a bad idea. Neier is right - what if a guy has been to 15 Pro Bowls and eventually templates exist for those? The bottom of his page would be taken over by these. This might be a bad idea.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work?►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when Jmfangio was still around? Whenever he wanted to shrink the size taken up by discussions, he would add something to condense the conversation. If this was necessary, I would add the following:
<div class="NavFrame">
<div class="NavHead" ">Pro Bowl starters</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">
((2007 Pro Bowl AFC starters))
((2007 Pro Bowl NFC starters))
))
...which would produce this:
Pro Bowl starters
If you click on "hide" on the purple bar, then the whole thing would be condensed, and then you could un-condense it at will, if you don't want to see all of them. Ksy92003(talk) 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant when I suggested a merge, to embed both into a collapsible table. 15 collapsible tables wouldn't look that bad, but would look impressive, and rightly so if one person participates in 15, consecutively or not. --lincalinca 01:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am opposed to a merge because if there was a merge, then every single time the template is added, there would have the NFC starters for an AFC player and vice-versa, and that means that every single time the templates are added to a player's page, half of the templates would be unnecessary and extra space. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's what they meant. I don't think they meant merge the AFC and NFC templates (bad idea). I think they just meant put them in a collapsible box.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I misunderstood then. No problem with putting all of these individual templates in a collapsable box, but I'd oppose a merger of the two individual 2007 templates into the same template. Ksy92003(talk) 00:32, 30 October 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:Superheroboxneeded

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Superheroboxneeded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template can be replicated by adding infobox=yes to the ((Comicsproj)) template placed on the talk page. Since we should minimise template use in the article namespace, I suggest we delete this template to encourage the talk page usage. — Hiding Talk 08:04, 27 October 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:Nintendo Brain 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 deletion. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nintendo Brain series‎ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A template full of very loosely-associated topics. The title alone is WP:NOR: I don't believe any reliable source as ever referred to Brain Age and Big Brain Academy as "Nintendo's Brain series," though I'm sure they have compared them to each other in reviews, as is natural since both are brain training games. Furthermore, if this were to be split, it would just be a complicated "see also" – two games does not make a series. It takes three. — hbdragon88 07:02, 27 October 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:Dominionism

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 no consensus, default to keep. This template must however be monitored as BLP concerns are possible. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 03:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dominionism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Many reasons to delete: (1) This template is unavoidably a POV magnet. (2) It forces an unmerited binary categorization onto what is a complex and nuanced issue. (3) It raises massive WP:BLP concerns especially as applied to individuals and groups. — Raymond Arritt 00:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The infobox's usefulness (such as it ever was) is dramatically decreased without the individuals that were listed until 27 October (former state here). Furthermore, BLP is not the only reason for deletion. --BlueMoonlet 03:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only reason which remains. If you remove individuals POV and Binary concerns are minimized; a reliable source (and or self labeling) is all you need for a group to be labeled Dom. - RoyBoy 800 03:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you remove the individuals (and organizations, per CBM), then there's practically nothing left and the template is useless. Furthermore, there are still the undue weight and conflation issues. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because this infobox is a quagmire of conflated definitions. One (arguably the most common) is to refer to a fringe group that is not notable enough to be in an infobox in the first place. It is true that some scholars use the term with a different meaning, but for the most part they speak generally and don't call out individual people or organizations. With only one exception, all cited identifications of non-fringe figures as Dominionist is in the context of a partisan polemic. And even the one exception is debatable enough that it shouldn't be uncritically reported as fact (which is what an infobox does by its nature). --BlueMoonlet 18:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you mean conflated? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Mixing things together that should be kept separate. --BlueMoonlet 19:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Would this "separate list" be an article or an infobox? --BlueMoonlet 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If what you mean is an article containing a list of "People identified as Dominionist" or the like, this already exists at Dominionism#Identifying dominionists. This could be reformatted as a bulleted list and serve as a nav tool. But then what is the use of the template? Why not !vote delete? The people are the real meat of it. --BlueMoonlet 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it goes without saying that any individuals listed in the template itself better be pretty major figured within the Dominionism philosophy, not just people who happen to subscribe to it. JeffBurdges 13:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there are so few people who say that they are Dominionists. Why is a template needed at all? Steve Dufour 14:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the BLP issues really? I've not found any transcluded people for whome Dominionism seems like less than "their main shtick"? I suspect the real questions are just about it's name. So I'd like to point out :
We're not talking about some term invented by left wing academics to attack the religious right. Christian reconstructionism itself invented & uses the word Dominionism. So aplication of the term is correct for almost all Christian reconstructionists, which is pretty much everyone we're talking about wrt BLP issues. We're presumably applyng the term to dead philosophers exactly how Christian reconstructionists apply it, which is valid since those are the philosophers who had a concerted influence upon them.
Anyway I just don't see the objections, you mustn't just stick a philosophy template on anyone who says supporting things once, they need to say them repeatedly, consistantly, and articulately enough to influence others. No one who meets those criteria will object to either the Christian reconstructionists or Wikipedia saying that their a Dominionist. At most, they'll accept the broad title but object to being attached to some specific doctrinal aspects of Christian reconstructionism. But I imagine these people are exactly why we've a template for Dominionism but not Christian reconstructionism. And perhaps partially why the Christian reconstructionists inented the term. JeffBurdges 09:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see the main problem here : Someone listed older influences a if their the main philosophers. For example Francis Schaeffer is listed but isn't a dominionist, while Rushdoony isn't listed at all. Well, this seems easy to fix. Here's a pretty good section of the dominionism article on which the template can be based. JeffBurdges 10:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I think you misunderstand the point. The CRs are not the problem (except that their notability is so marginal that they probably shouldn't be in an infobox at all). The problem is mainstream figures who reject the term Dominionist but have been listed here because the name has been applied to them by (almost exclusively) partisan polemicists. If you keep the mainstream figures, then the infobox has BLP issues (not to mention undue weight, conflation of multiple definitions of the term, and weasel words in the headings) and should be deleted; if you remove them, then the infobox imparts no useful information and should be deleted. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A strong consensus among reliable scholars agrees that Hitler was a racist. It is a claim of consensus that satisfies the criterion. There is no such consensus among non-partisan scholars in this case. "[A]dopt[ing] the New Testament as its singular source of law" is the purview of the fringe, not something that any mainstream figure under discussion here has said. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I've already voted (above) to delete, so this is not a 2nd vote, but instead is to ask those who wish to keep this Category template to reconsider the two main objections, namely the size and placement of the template itself, as well as the suitability of a religion template contrary toWP:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people.
With regard to the first objection, this template takes up fully one-fourth of the right side of my older 800x600 CRT monitor screen, just below the Article Lead. Why such unusually oversized prominence? If such a template is needed at all, why not format it horizontally instead of vertically, and place it at the bottom of the article in the "See also" section, as is common practice? Or better yet, relegate it to the article Talk page as a Project template?
Secondly, it would seem that applying such a template to a biography should observe the accepted convention pertaining to WP:Categorization of people#Biographies of living people, which says, in part: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
  1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  2. The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable sources"
Thus, unless the biographee has actually stated, "I am a Dominionist" and the quotation is reliably sourced, how can this template be considered compliant? JGHowes talk - 00:27, 7 November 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:Lima district table

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lima district table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Orphaned template replaced by ((Infobox District Peru)). Victor12 00:49, 27 October 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:Bond eras

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 02:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Bond eras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template is redundant. There already exists a template that serves the exact same purpose ((Bond movies)). — El Greco(talk) 00:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This template adds unnecessary clutter to the Bond movies articles. --Victor12 01:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete  SpecialWindler talk (currently in control)  00:55, 27 October 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:Owner

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. WoohookittyWoohoo! 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Owner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The template namespace is an inappropriate place to be indulging a penchant for parody/satire/humour. Hesperian 12:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even if you ignore TBM's comment, which is correct, it's still inappropriate to have something like this as it's misleading. I find it quite funny, personally, but potentially, people will use it as a way of saying "take this, dickhead" to people they don't like, which is obviously an issue with WP:CIVILITY. Maybe try it over at Uncyclopedia. --lincalinca 06:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I do have a sense of humor. That's what I go to YouTube for. But not here as it's a serious encyclopedia. TheBlazikenMaster 14:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to stop it from being used, whatever the author's intention. He should put it on Uncyclopedia, where it can still be funny without any risk of causing harm. Jll 13:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sentiments entirely. I think it's quite funny, but of course, in Uncyclopedia, you'd have to have Oscar Wilde or Kanye West as your poster boy. --lincalinca 23:50, 29 October 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.
More