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 default to keep. This infobox is the best way I see to avoid violations of WP:BLP. We can't use the ((Infobox criminal)), and we can't use no infobox, and the sometimes conflicting status of criminals on the list (suspected, indicted, or convicted) means that this is simply the simplest and least messy way to go about this at present. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

All members of the FBI top-ten list are primarily notable in their own right, normally for the allegations against them, or the crimes they have committed. As such, a more appropriate infobox exists for each of them. Usually, that would be ((Infobox Criminal)), but for others such as Osama bin Laden, it would seem strange to see either of these infoboxes. We are already able to track these articles as a group through Category:FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Their place on the list should be included in the article text, and on FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives. Their place on the list is decided by the FBI, so application of this infobox is inherently POV — Mark Chovain 22:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The inactive WikiProject FBI has been notified of this discussion -- Mark Chovain 22:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ten most wanted by the FBI functions as a propaganda banner, use the template:Infobox Criminal instead.--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 02:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If a subject is notable primarily for criminal activity and/or allegations, then use ((Infobox Criminal)). The method of capture is not relevant, and WP should not promote the "Top Ten" list in this way. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Infobox criminal would be much more appropriate. SkierRMH 08:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, very useful and much more important and notable than vague simple criminal template. -Jeeny ^(talk) 02:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep per above DragonDance (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - How is it more useful or notable than the combination of the criminal infobox and the top-ten category? It would be great if you could provide your reasoning. I think it is often interesting that a person has been listed on the top-ten (hence worth noting in the article), but is rarely a defining characteristic of that person's notability. -- Mark Chovain 03:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least for now in the absence of an appropriate replacement, and
• Comment: PLEASE don't substitute Template:Infobox Criminal for this infobox indiscriminately. FBI Ten Most Wanted are largely wanted on suspicion of crimes. Infobox Criminal is for people who have been convicted of crimes. Warren Jeffs, for example, has been relabelled with Infobox Criminal as having been convicted of various crimes, which is not the case; he is wanted on suspicion of having committed these crimes. This is a major WP:BLP issue! TSP (talk) 12:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am of course out of date - Jeffs now has been convicted, though not of all the things he was charged with. My point stands, though - make sure you don't label people as being convicted of things they are in fact only accused of. TSP (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TSP above. This template fulfils a unique use that Infobox Criminal does not, as the people on the FBI Ten Most Wanted list have not necessarily (yet) been convicted of anything. (e.g., Robert William Fisher, #6 on the list: he is suspected by the FBI of killing his wife and children, but as he has not been convicted by any court, we cannot accurately call him a criminal.) Terraxos (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - then the FBI most wanted box has serious BPL issues. -- Mark Chovain 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why. It's a BLP issue if the template states or implies as a fact that they have in fact committed that crime, which is a controversial allegation; that they are wanted by the FBI on suspicion of having committed the crime is simply a fact. POV and the like don't require us to exclude prominent points of view about people, even if those points of view are controversial; they require us to present opinions only as opinions, but not to exclude them if they are notable and prominent opinions. For example, we have an infobox for Christian saints; the fact that some of those people might be considered by some historians not to have performed the saintly acts attributed to them, or even to have existed, doesn't mean we can't represent prominently the fact that that person is revered by some as a saint. Similarly for Nobel Peace Prize winners. Equally, that the FBI is pursuing someone is a well-known and prominent fact; that they might wrong to do so doesn't in my view make it POV to prominently mention that fact; given that the majority of the people so described would not be notable were it not for the fact of being wanted by the FBI for their alleged crimes. TSP (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We've got two kinds of people: Those who are notable regardless of what the FBI says, and those who are not otherwise notable. If they have been convicted of a crime, then they're likely notable in their own right. If they have not been convicted of a crime, then you need to keep in mind that the FBI does not decide who is and is not considered notable by simply putting them on their list. If the only assertion of notability is that the FBI has listed them, then they probably shouldn't have an article in the first place. We don't write articles about people simply because a couple of newspapers say that they may have committed a crime; why should we treat the FBI differently? -- Mark Chovain 02:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just don't think that I agree that something being an opinion makes it intrinsically non-notable, if it is the opinion of a notable group or person in that field. If the Nobel Committee decided to give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone most people had bever heard of before, I'm pretty sure we'd want an article on that person. If a book wins the Booker Prize, or an album the Mercury Music Prize, or an actor or film an Oscar, then those are all extremely notable facts, and I think that we should have articles on anyone who has been in that category and note prominently on the pages of anyone in those categories that this is the case. Just as the Academy are the people most people look to for their opinion of what is a great film, the FBI are the people, in America (and to a degree worldwide), who most people look to for their opinion of who is a high-priority suspected criminal. I think that most people DO think it is extremely notable if someone is in the FBI's top ten wanted list, so it's a fact that we should cover prominently and a perfectly acceptable reason to have an article on them. TSP (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The template has purpose. Simple as that. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin - the keep comments above mainly say that is should be kept because WP:ITSUSEFUL. None of them refute the point that application of this infobox is inherently biased. TSP raises a valid point that we should not indiscriminately apply the criminal infobox, as some of these people are wanted only on suspicion of a crime. I agree with that (my bad on being careless with the Jeffs article), but that provides even more reason for not using this infobox. We shouldn't be labelling living people because a single law enforcement agency suspects they have broken the law. -- Mark Chovain 00:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Untrue.' People that escape from jail make it onto this list, who have already been convicted in a court of law. So saying that "suspects" are only on this list. It just so happens escapes are very rare. Plus to be on this very distinctive list is very tought to make so it is WP:NOTABLE. I am the project lead of WikiProject FBI. Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 13:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they've already been convicted of a crime, then escaped from jail, then ((Infobox Criminal)) is more appropriate - I don't think there's much dispute about that. In the case where they've never been convicted of a crime, but the FBI has listed them as wanted, we should not have an article unless there has been independent coverage of the person, in which case notability is established by the independent sources. -- Mark Chovain 20:58, 22 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.

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(Говорить!) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not sure what this template is intended for. It is a self-reference to a wiki-project so it is not appropriate for transclusion in the main article namespace. Anyone have any ideas why this template exists?— Andrew c ^[talk] 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not transcluded anywhere, and doesn't seem to have any practical purpose Mark Chovain 23:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chovain. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused & unusable, per nom. SkierRMH 08:33, 15 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.

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(Говорить!) 07:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Navigational template with only one entry, unused. — Pagrashtak 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unused & w/only one entry, not useful. SkierRMH 08:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thundermaster367 11:01, 15 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.

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(Говорить!) 07:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Members of the Colorado General Assembly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete. Deprecated template, superseded by Template:Colorado State Representatives and Template:Colorado State Senators. It was split into two following discussion on the template talk page. — Lincolnite 09:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as deprecated and superseded. SkierRMH 08:35, 15 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.

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 subst and delete. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 07:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Treaties and Agreements of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Subst and delete Used only in one article, Geography of India. Appears to focus only on treaties related to environmental issues. If we had a similar template for every country, imagine the clutter at the bottom of every article about a treaty. szyslak 05:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not used as an infobox but as tabularly-formatted article text, so could be subst'ed. Not clear that this information really belongs in that article anyway. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 03:02, 14 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.

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(Говорить!) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Mad Men Season 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - template is for the episode articles which are about to be deleted or merged at AFD. Even if they aren't, this template offers little or nothing in terms of navigational utility. — Otto4711 03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now I would wait to see the outcome of the AfD before taking action on the template. Seems like a fine nav aid to me, as the pages contained in it do presently exist. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The AFD has closed and all of the episode articles have been redirected. Otto4711 04:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per AFD outcome. The template is unused and links only to redirects. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:36, 21 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.

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(Говорить!) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category-Alaskan Village (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like a misguided attempt to create a category by making a template (the category already exists, BTW, as Category:Communities in Alaska). — Grutness...wha? 00:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. —MJCdetroit 04:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Inappropriate use of a template. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Inappropriate use of template by a disruptive user, since blocked for multiple sockpuppet accounts. Pyrope 15:38, 20 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.

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(Говорить!) 03:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2001-02 Detroit Red Wings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These roster templates for NHL teams have been tfd'd and deleted numerous times now. They are a clutter on player pages and there is already a list of who was on that seasons team on the season page for that particular team. I only managed to find two but I am pretty sure there are more TFD #1 and TFD #2. — Djsasso 07:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Not particularly useful and can clutter pages for players who have won multiple cups. -Pparazorback 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous TfD's. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. If this template is used, all Cup championship year rosters should be done so this is not worth the while. --Hasek is the best 03:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and past TfD's. Clutters articles, and does not add any significant value. Resolute 03:55, 20 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.

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(Говорить!) 03:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Zeno author (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Template:Zeno artist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - currently all uses reverted

Delete Used for spamming external links (that mostly don't work) to a German site with pictures of (old) artists' work. Probably well-intentioned, but not useful. The creator is doing the same on other WPs - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Template:Zeno_author. Johnbod 13:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the links that don't work will be fixed soon. On Zeno.org a huge collection of original works of german authors in liturature in philosophy exists, try http://www.zeno.org – the template is made to link these to the articles on german authors in different language-WPs including en, so the user can reach the original works of those. This is made with Gutenberg-de too but Zeno.org provides more texts in a higher quality than Gutenberg. -- 77.132.129.134 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) (normally on de to be found under de:Benutzer:Achim Raschka)[reply]

Is that an admission of a conflict of interest? MER-C 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried all links again and all of them are working well - they ink to a porträt site from where you can reach all the works of that author collected on Zeno.org. I don't see any reason not to use the content of the biggest full text digital library in German language for articles about German authors. -- Achim Raschka 15:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to links to full-text of German literary works in articles on them, but for example we do not need a link to a text of the Kama Sutra in German, tempting though it may be to try to imagine most en:WP readers making use of it. The quality of the picture links is very variable compared to Commons & other sources, sometimes better, sometimes not. Eg Lovis Corinth is fine by me, also Franz Marc, but others are not - there are many similar sites out there. Johnbod 15:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Zeno-authors, aren't we? The Links lead to digital texts of maybe Marx. For that example: You can found on the Marx-site of Zeno.org [1] all his works that are important to marxism theory, same you can find on the Goethe-page much of that stuff he published in his lifetime in that language he used - maybe the Kama Sutra-link is bad, so kick it - the literaturesites are unique in the whole Germanbased internet and established as excellent linksites in the de.wikipedia (not by me). I do not understand why the en should not have links to that sources. Greetings again -- 77.132.129.134 17:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is the English Wikipedia, it makes reasonable sense that our external links should be in English. (As for the literary works, don't we have the German Wikisource for that purpose?) Plus the link additions look somewhat spammy. MER-C 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yep. A number of questions here. Even if this is a worthwhile resource, the linked pages are filled with advertisements. The creation of a template and the mass-linking to this site sure look like attempts to spam. And are these not, for the most part, foreign language links, which are discouraged? JNW 01:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per MER-C. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Johnbod, MER-C, JNW, while some of the images are worthwhile the German text is debilitating. Perhaps justification for a few of the more obscure German artists can be made, although even then English text is all the more valuable. Modernist 03:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose With all due respect, but your own proficiencies aren't a ledger. The relevant text IS the original one. English translations are good and fine, but they are NOT the piece at issue in the article. They can be provided in addition to, but not as a replacement of the original. It is plain and simply unprofessional to treat a translation as "more valuable" than the original. It can be more accessible to the reader unproficient in the language, but anyone who has the necessary proficiency will find the original unsubstitutable. --OliverH (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I wrote above: I really don't understand this – a template normally is the way to concentrate and getting an overview of linked pages when there should be more than only a few links to one site with different pages; this way it is used in the German WP so I made a template for that site and used it. What – for me – really is strange, is the oppinion, that the original text of a German author should be in english or when not should not be linked from here; that leads to articles like Annette von Droste-Hülshoff were no works are given now better than linking to a German page. I'm working for WP since 2003 now, most of the time as an author of articles like de:Gabunviper, de:Klapperschlangen or de:Lovis Corinth and de:Selbstporträt mit Palette (Manet) (more you'll find on my user pages); en and other versions I normally use as an IP user to check Interwiki, Weblinks and other stuff – but I do not spam here or at other sites, I only placed a (as I thought) very needful weblink in about 15 only German authors directly to their works in their original language to lead the user of that articles to that stuff of more than 700 authors and philosophers. Seems that others (you) don't think, that those were useful – I have to accept this, no need to argue between authors, but maybe you have another way to solve this? Greeting from Berlin again -- Achim Raschka 06:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC) (and be sure that it is better that I am not writing articles in english with my bad english style)[reply]

I think the point is that though some individual links may be useful, there is very strong resistance to allowing a precedent for a template to effect them. For one thing the links seem to appear always at the top of the list - not good. For another, this might evade the bots we have watching out for spamming - I don't know. Each link added should be carefully considered a template makes what is in any case an easy process too easy. Johnbod 15:17, 14 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.