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. Robdurbar 18:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Although this template was made a couple years ago, I believe it no longer has a purpose when you can use ((suspsock|Michael)). In addition, the person that is mentioned (Michael) has made up and changed from his sockpuppetry ways a long time ago. You can also use ((sockpuppet|Michael)) to represent the sockpuppet that was blocked. I know he was unbanned nearly two years ago, but I think those two templates can replace the template noted for deletion quite perfectly. --VelairWight 23:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, speedy if possible, replace with standard user has been blocked message thingy. — Dunc|☺ 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant. Neil916 (Talk) 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 03:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with a standard user has been blocked thing. Sophy's Duckling 08:12, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

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. Robdurbar 18:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

While this template can be used to link aircraft registration numbers to official government registries (e.g. FAA N-number registry), it also has a built-in option to provide links to airdisaster.com, which has extensive advertising (big annoying banner advertisement and the google ads) and not that much useful content. This template is used on 96 pages, with 65 of them linking to airdisaster.com. It was 69 pages, until I just changed four of them and discovered how extensive the links are. Maybe the user that inserted the links did so in good faith. Regardless, I feel that this violates WP:EL, WP:RS, and possibly WP:SPAM. Now, I could just go in and change all the links to official authority websites. But, I'm not sure this template is needed at all. I think it would be better to reference the N-Number and aircraft type, using ref tags with sources linked in the references section, per WP:CITE. As such, I'd rather just delete this template, and provide proper referencing. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - It is still a useful template. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 22:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. You should be discussing this on Template talk:Airreg rather than taking this unilateral action. Plus I believe it to be useful. Airdisaster.com has a load of useful information, and often presented in a cleaner manner than the Authority pages. However, if someone can find a way to cleanly link into Authority pages, it should probably be done. By the way, please note which four pages you deleted the template from so that if this is voted down, we can reverse your edits. Thank you. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be bettter to reference Aircraft registration numbers the same way we reference everything else (using ref tags, with sources in the references section)? It looks like I may have to go through all the pages and fix the template, and would rather do it properly per WP:CITE. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would add unnecessary clutter to some articles. I think the current form is intuitive. In addition, by having it be a template, if the Authority changes their database query system, if you use references, you have to change a ton of articles. This way, one only needs to change it in one place. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unilateral action would be just to go in and change all the links without discussion. Rather, I would like some discussion and wider consensus on this. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a load of useful information"? One of the first links I checked was on the Korean Air Flight 007 article, which turns up no results, along with the ads. --Aude (talk contribs) 22:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. The template makes it easy for a user to reference the Authority's site without having to figure it out. Many of the Authority sites do not make it easy to link into, as they are databases. Plus the information obviously varies. Listen, rather than delete the template, which serves a purpose now, we should look at allowing it to link to more useful disaster information. Plus you are fixated on Airdisaster.com, when the page links into many non-disaster registries, and in those cases, it uses official information. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While the information may vary from article to article, you will find that Airdisaster.com does provide information on most notable disasters. Anyhow, the plan is eventually to update the template to link into a sie (such as NTSB, which provides info on many non-US disasters, by the way), and this will allow simple replacement at that time. I think you are missing the point of having this be a template with arguments. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your beef with Airdisaster.com? They are no worse than many other pages which Wikipedia links to. If it comes down to it, we can remove the links to that site specifically and keep the template, though I believe that would be an overzealous step. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep pro tempore. Sophy's Duckling 08:18, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

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. Robdurbar 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redundant to template:Infobox rocket. GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 21:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was the original author of both templates. --GW_Simulations_{|User Page | Talk | Contribs | Chess | E-mail} 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Primary author requests deletion. Other edits editors provided minor edits. Neil916 (Talk) 23:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Sophy's Duckling 08:16, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

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. Robdurbar 18:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Embry-Riddle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is not even a template located there, it's just text with no userpage linkage other than BigDT's userboxbin. The editor who made the box has not edited since its creation. Teke 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, even though I currently attend ERAU, this template does qualify for deletion per nom. It appears someone had a good idea making this, but never followed through with it. --Zsinj^Talk 23:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless. Neil916 (Talk) 23:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Let creator make it into a user category, but not template. Sophy's Duckling 08:16, 20 August 2006 (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 page.

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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WMA2004 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template lists all the winners at the 2004 World Music Awards. It should be deleted as this characteristic does not really connect any of these artists. The template has no use and only clutters musician articles. Also, if this template exists, users may continue to create similar templates for other award shows and other years. musicpvm 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep § WMA have got fame and popularity among musicians and audiences and is worth getting place in artist pages. 203.200.95.130 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think there's templates like this for individual years even of the Oscars, which are far more famous. Phr (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - category is enough. Renata 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete template but keep category. Sophy's Duckling 08:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it's only for one year. (Also unregistered users cannot vote, i.e. 203.200.95.130 above) --theDemonHog 07:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - all of the above. Shawn88 12:20, 22 August 2006 (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 page.

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(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Biography protection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Where in Biographies of living persons does it say articles can be protected like this (see Barbara Schwarz)? What policy is this following? The template was created only after I brought the issue up with Fred. If it's a legal issue it should go through WP:OFFICE. No? BrokenSegue 01:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be able to deal with these problems before they become office matters. Office is one person. There are a thousand administrators. Fred Bauder 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete the offending text and revert or protect against the text's re-addition as WP:BLP suggests? Policy allows protection only to prevent the readdition of unsourced material, some of that article was sourced. New powers like this need to be enumerated. Unless you're calling IAR for this one instance, in which case there shouldn't be a template (and in which case I don't mind so much). BrokenSegue 04:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Given the small number of admins to non-admins, articles like the ones cited may never be corrected so as to conform. Better to just remove material that is contrary to policy than to use this template. Agent 86 18:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Violates the core principles of Wikipedia and the protection policy. Kotepho 01:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This template is completely similar to regular Protection tag. Daniel's page ☎ 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom above. The protection template is not used anywhere except Barbara Schwarz. We would rather use ((office)) to tag that article, do we? -- ADNghiem501 23:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it isn't actually an action by WP:OFFICE. If this template is deleted I will interpret that as a rejection of the underlying policy and unprotect Barbara Schwarz. BrokenSegue 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, but... Delete. If kept, this template should only be used on talk pages, not on articles and the part inviting admins to edit the article must be removed. (Italic part added 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC) --Phr). The article should just get the regular protection template. The protection should only happen for valid reasons, e.g. an edit war where multiple people keep inserting unsourced criticism, but I see that protection as legitimate when there is good cause. The issue of deleting problematic articles and their history is separate and I find the increasing trend toward it alarming, even though it may have been reasonable as an IAR call in this one instance (the Barbara Schwarz article). I described some of the special circumstances of this article here. Basically there are a disproportionate number of Wikipedia editors who pay close attention to Scientology-related controversy (this would include me), so Barbara Schwarz gets much more attention here than she does in the outside world, and she's a less encyclopedic topic than the AfD's might make one think. Phr (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The protection is legit, but "admins edit it however you want!" is not cool. Stub it, protect it, and discuss changes on the talk page like normal people. That is, unless admins started having more authority around here in regards to content and policies? Kotepho 23:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed vote to delete per Kotepho. Actually came back to this page just for this purpose. Kotopho is precisely correct. Phr (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If an article violates WP:BLP enough that action needs to be taken, it should be stubbed and reconstructed, as office-protected articles are; locking an article in place with offending text that only a handful of users can remove does not follow WP:BLP guidelines. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information." ~ PseudoSudo 13:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The "admins should edit"-part ist quite worrisome. Since when do we delete biography articles without anyone complaining in the first place anyways? Or did I miss something? --Conti|✉ 16:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why admins only? Sophy's Duckling 08:14, 20 August 2006 (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 page.