Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 23

Template:Add2 6 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Add2 7 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unused, and I can't really see a use for them. ><RichardΩ612 ^ER 12:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if I didn't assume good faith I would have tagged them with {{tl|db-nonsense)), except that I AGF :) Gracenotes^T § 05:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Totally Spies! (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Unnecessary navbox for a television series with only four links; two of which are sub-stub articles on the creators. All relevant information can be found easily in main article. ― El Cid ∴∵ 05:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - "See also" will work fine. Gracenotes^T § 06:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and above. John Reaves (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary navigation box. Harryboyles 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary navigation box, and "See also" will probably be fine. Daniel5127 | Talk 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The criteria for inclusion have not been defined, leaving the possibility for this template to become huge (encompassing several countries and religions)- it is basically an unmanageable list, and as such an article which lists Modern Dharmic Authors would be better suited. Keeping this template only opens the way for edit wars. --Sfacets 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, a list article would definitely be better. Certainly the template should not be put on articles of writers who are not included on it. There are a few dozen writers on it, but the template creator spammed many more articles with the template. This implies that some writers are more important than others. What are the criteria for inclusion? IPSOS (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The first claim, that the criteria for inclusion have not been defined, applies to most other templates as well, and is wrong because there is a discussion about the criteria for inclusion on its talk page. Where are the criteria for inclusion for the Hinduism or the Buddhism template? Are they also to be deleted?

The claim by IPSOS that the template should not be put on articles of authors who are not included on it was answered by me already on talk, and I have received no response to my second post. Almost all religion and other templates (like the Hinduism and Buddhism templates) are also on many other articles which are not on the template but are related. Are they to be deleted for this? I believe that most articles benefit if they have 1 or 2 templates, and many of these articles had no other templates at all, I didn't put it on articles which already had many templates.

The claim that the template could become too big is not an issue at the moment, and there are many bigger templates. If it once becomes too big, the number of authors per religion should be restricted. Personally, I would like to see separate templates for each part in the future, that either complement or replace this template. But the problem is that right now, these kind of author articles are too incomplete and underdeveloped. For instance, there are at the moment not enough articles on Jain and Sikh authors to have a separate template on Jain and Sikh authors. There is one single article on an important Jain writer that is halfway well developed (it's still a stub). I imagine that in maybe one or two years, there will many more articles on other important Jain writers, but until then, it makes no sense to have a template on Jain writers. --Bondego 08:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree that the "Dharmic writers" category plus an article listing same could be enough; the pool of qualifying writers may just be too diverse to represent a defined body of thought that it would be worth mapping in this way. Jayen466 12:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility, why not split the template into its separate categories (Jain, Hindu, etc.) now. And rather than listing all the Dharmic authors in all of these categories each time the template appears in an article, we could just (1) list all the Dharmic category labels along a row at the top, with the applicable category highlighted, and (2) list, in the main area, the writers in the category that the present article falls into. Users should then be able to click on the other categories in the top row (hyperlinks) to get to the lists of writers in those categories. So the effect would be something like this:

                                 Modern Dharmic Writers (1875 to present)
  Buddhist writers | Hindu writers | Jain writers | Sikh writers | Zen writers | Other/syncretic
                 Satish Kumar | Claudia Pastorino | Yashodev Suri | Jayantsain Suri

Colour coding of the category labels at the top and the main listing field could be used to aid orientation (like green for Hindu, white for Jain etc.). Jayen466 11:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good idea. --Bondego 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed Feelings - I do think that having a template that assists folks in finding authors in this area is a good idea, however, as it stands, I'm a bit confused over the criteria that should be applied to what author's qualify. In reading the above responses, I would tend to lean toward a category being started and article written that defines what "Modern Dharmic Writers" means and contains a listing. Nightngle 19:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The high number of authors that could qualify for the template is a problem in the long term. However, at the moment, these articles are still very incomplete and underdeveloped. In the short term, the template may also help a bit to bring some focus to these articles, which currently have often NPOV and serious WP:BLP problems. In the long term, when we have more of these articles which are also well developed, the "category only" solution could be better.--Bondego 23:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Canadiansoldiers.com Image (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Obsolete fair use tag, as the template isn't used with any images. There's enough clutter when it comes to various fair use tags already. There also exists a redirect at Template:Canadiansoldiers,com Image. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 01:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - tag is a bit confusing as it cites fair use and permission granted in the same breath. — PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 05:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteJohn Reaves (talk) 08:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Defeats the purpose of tags when it only represents images from a site, of which there are none. Harryboyles 09:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harryboyles (talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]