< June 4 June 6 >

June 5

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 debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK)[edit]

Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template is a copy of Template:Big Brother housemates. The only difference between the actual template and this template is users have modified this template to work exclusively with Big Brother 2008 (UK). This template is not needed as every function of this template can be done using Template:Big Brother housemates. All other articles in progress currently use Template:Big Brother housemates and Big Brother 2008 (UK) is no exception. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Template:Big Brother housemates has the same colors for "Nomated" "Evicted" and "Walked" it also has colors for "Ejected" in the event a contestant is removed by the producers and two extra colors in the event of a twist that is notable or an extra prize is rewarded. Template:Big Brother 2008 (UK) is just a copy of Template:Big Brother housemates customized for one specific season of Big Brother. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 17:39, 6 June 2008 (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:Bbblock

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 debate was keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Obsolete template, superseded with standardized user warnings project. The template doesn't even tell someone what they are blocked for or how to request unblock. It is returned here from an extended DRV after parties indicated the prior 10 day TfD was insufficient notice. MBisanz talk 16:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are no wiki links to what vandalism is at Wikipedia or how long they are blocked for. MBisanz talk 03:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just updated the template, it now contains links to what wiki vandalism is, AND the current users's block log. — xaosflux Talk 04:09, 6 June 2008 (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:Mo icon

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 debate was No consensus, possibly a weak keep. The fact that the languages are syntactically identical means that, when a source explicitly claims to be written in Moldovan, it would be original research to state otherwise. It is similarly unhelpful to weasel by noting, except where encyclopedically relevant (eg Moldovan language) the elephant in the room of the two languages differing only because politicians say they do. Any sensible person can, it appears, tell that the two languages are identical; the fact that a significant number of reliable sources claim otherwise is a notable phenomenon, which should be commented on encyclopedically. It is a shame that the template does not link to Moldovan language where this issue can be explained properly. The issue of which template to use when the source does not make it clear which 'language' it is written in is undoubtedly a nasty one, and is a legitimate cricism of the template; but such an issue cannot be decided at a TfD discussion. Happy‑melon 11:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mo icon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this template should be deleted because language templates here should serve a linguistic and not a political purpose. I will not deny that Moldova, as per its constitution, declares that the Moldovan language is official there. However, from a linguistic point of view, that does not make Moldovan a separate language. While it's legitimate for us to have a "Moldovan language" article, it is not, I believe, our duty to accommodate that particular viewpoint by declaring certain documents, written in Romanian, to in fact be in Moldovan. If you don't take my word that the two languages are the same, here are some quotes to back me up (note that Moldovan is now written in the Latin script as well):

Again, I see this as a solely linguistic question; since the languages are the same, we should use only one template, while of course recognising in the relevant articles that Moldova calls the language by a different name.— Biruitorul Talk 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete good proposal.--Flueras (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(user blocked as sockpuppet of banned user Bonaparte) Khoikhoi 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reply is the first one written in Maka-maka language on this web page. Please ask and admin to warn or ban me for not using the English language when posting on WP. Thank you (the end of the Maka-maka language text) adriatikus | talk 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above, and the one below, show that supporters of deletion have no respect for Wikipedia policies, and all they want is to impose their personal view, even if that means violating WP:OR and WP:FORUM.Xasha (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about WP. It's about not losing common sense. As about you shifting to general guidelines (that's metadiscourse, my dear, dribbling argumentation) instead of giving a single objective counterargument, I suppose it means you have none. adriatikus | talk 14:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: There was also an easier way to respond: your two rules are actually one, and it's about articles, not talk pages. But let's keep the subject in focus, don't we? adriatikus | talk 15:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS2: Oh, if you miss a ban, keep generalizing. adriatikus | talk 15:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template appears only in articles, so WP:OR applies. What you're doing here is also discouraged per WP:FORUM (read the "Discussion forum" part) and WP:SOAP.Xasha (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I'm right. BTW, you're only replying to post scriptum. adriatikus | talk 15:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only reason that would sustain using Mo icon is the legislation of Moldova, let me propose a thought experiment: let's suppose we're back in time, about 70 years ago. What would be Wikipedia's policy regarding Jews who want to edit Germany related articles, since there was a law given by a democratically elected administration forbidding Jews the right to teach Arian children? There are 3 reasons I'm proposing this thought experiment:
  1. law systems are not absolute reference points by themselves; the law has to have a rational judgment supporting it;
  2. something absurd enforced (the 'Moldovan language' name seems to be enforced by law from autumn) by a government which is democratically elected automatically has its supporters - what I mean is truth and right judgment aren't matters to vote for;
  3. the situation resembles what's happening in Moldova: social/ethnic engineering by trying to "scientifically prove" and "enforce by law" a thesis that fits the rulers;
adriatikus | talk 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think what I say is not NPOV, then read this page from the Jamestown Foundation about the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies". No wonder they fit the above example, coincidentia oppositorum after all. adriatikus | talk 04:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mo Wikipedia is frozen. No one edits it. All editors from Moldova edit Romanian Wikipedia. Why? Because the words "Moldovan language" are a political manipulation only. Romanian language was simply renamed into Moldovan. By law. Yes, this real world issue was already decided: page full of proving quotations (with links). adriatikus | talk 06:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way you can "identify Moldovan language" just by reading a text. Because to identify is to establish the identity, which contains the characteristics one thing has and others don't. If you can't accomplish this simple task, to identify the language of this text: "Mama mea face plăcinte mai bune ca mama ta" (which is, Romanian or Moldovan?), then you don't have 2 different things, but 2 words naming the same thing. The Mo icon template is not an article, but an identifier, a technical tool in WP. It has to behave like a tool, to identify the language as it is universally known, not by its invented name. This is so simple, I can't understand why you (pl.) refuse to understand that objective facts of this world cannot be ruled by laws. Also, why is so hard to see it's wrong when an administration does that? adriatikus | talk 05:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to Adriatikus' point: the idea is that a group of politicians, not a group of linguists, call it a language. The point of language templates, however, is to reflect acknowledged linguistic reality, not political purposes. Biruitorul Talk 18:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start by saying that I doubt that “Moldovan” is in fact a different language from Romanian. But the reality is that there exists a whole country of people who speak and call Moldovan a language. Montenegrin, Belarusian, Macedonian, and many other so-called languages were not, and are still not, universally recognized by linguists. The reality is that languages and politics are deeply intertwined. Portuguese would never have been a language if the country were simply a province of Spain. Other languages, such as Turkish, were heavily constructed and reformed by nationalist governments. Whether you agree with it or not, Moldovan is identified by many as its own language, and that’s all we have to worry about. – Zntrip 22:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between those languages and the case here is that standard Moldovan is identical to standard Romanian. Yes, there were some minor dialectal differences between the language spoken in Chişinău and the one spoken in Bucharest, but the current standard language both in Romania and Moldova is based on the variety spoken in Bucharest. Macedonians, for instance, standardized their own local speech, unrelated to the language spoken in Sofia. bogdan (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess when Wikipedia policies and personal feelings are opposite, the latter win, even for some administrators.Xasha (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, 3rd party independent experts from internationally recognized institutions cannot be called "personal feelings". I think you've already seen my collection of quotations from them. adriatikus | talk 10:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I challenge you to indicate not a full web page of opinions as I've did, but a single one internationally recognized independent expert claiming the opposite. Only one, supporting your views. Only one backing-up Moldova's communists. Can you find him? adriatikus | talk 11:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to bogdan’s last comment, I think you are stretching it. How would you know that the two are completely identical? Moldova is trying to distinguish its national language from Romanian, whether that’s wrong or right, or whether it is very similar is beside the point. The purpose of this template is to show that a Web site is in a language other than English. If that Web site claims that it is in Moldovan, than so be it. – Zntrip 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because if one is given two books, one published in Moldova (presumably written in "Moldovan") and one published in Romania (written in "Romanian"), it's not possible to tell which is which. Also, because the Moldovan school manual are named "Romanian language" rather than "Moldovan language", they study "Romanian literature", not "Moldovan literature" and some state institutions use "Romanian" rather than "Moldovan". bogdan (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know "Moldovan" is identical to Romanian because:
  1. the Academy of Sciences of Moldova, the regulating body of the language in the Rep. of Moldova, has adopted the same orthographic rules of the Romanian language, as they were established by the Romanian Academy, the relugaling body of the Romanian language. [3]
  2. because there are publishing houses in Mo and Ro selling books in both countries; the same with TV stations (no translation needed)
  3. because the editors from Moldova already edit the Romanian Wikipedia, without complain
  4. because in Moldovan schools the language is named Romanian, and they teach Romanian authors from Romania (from various regions), from 19th and 20th century, including Romanian writers in the last 50 years (when Mo was Soviet): Vasile Alecsandri, Mihai Eminescu, Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu, Alexandru Macedonski, George Coşbuc, Lucian Blaga, Tudor Arghezi, Vasile Voiculescu, Nichita Stănescu, Ana Blandiana, Leonid Dimov, Emil Brumaru, Marin Sorescu, Şerban Foarţă, Ion Neculce, Petre Ispirescu, Ioan Slavici, Ion Creangă, Ion Luca Caragiale, Mihail Sadoveanu, George Călinescu, Costache Negruzzi, Marin Preda, Mateiu Caragiale, Ştefan Augustin Doinaş, Eugen Ionescu...etc, etc, etc, (Mo Education Ministry) Archived 2008-09-16 at the Wayback Machine
  5. because no interpreter was ever needed when Ro and Mo officials met
  6. because the EU, in lack of an official "Mo translator", used the Ro one, changing only the card identifying him (the story is really fun)
  7. because all 3rd party INDEPENDENT experts acknowledge it's the same language, the new name being used as a mean to artificially create a new nationality, this serving a group's political purposes: the last 50 years history as explained in quotes by experts and the current status explained here by the Jamestown Foundation, the policies launched in 2001: "PCM [Party of Moldovan Communists] relaunches the Soviet experiment", "Russification and Soviet language policies".
  8. because you cannot name a single 3rd party independent scientist claiming the opposite
adriatikus | talk 10:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. the languages are identical, not similar - this Mo icon is a tool, not a WP article; how do we know some text is Mo and not Ro, when they are identical?
  2. as proven by independent analysts, the group is a political clique, not an important group; no internationally recognized 3rd party gives credit to the Mo official policy (see above); by contrary, the terms used are "Sovietization", "experiment", "artificially created language"
Again, we aren't talking about NPOV here, it's not about an article. We are talking about a tool in WP. It should identify a text following some criteria. What criteria do we choose when the languages are identical? Let's say we have some text about underware. Do we have to apply political criteria to label it as Mo (an artificial concept, see above), when we already have a name for that language? adriatikus | talk 17:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOR we say what the site says, whether is Mo, Ro or QoXasha (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if it says nothing? We need some criteria! This is the subject of this debate.
The situation regarding "Mo language" is exactly like the followings: Let's say some day, Mr. Bush passes a law saying the US don't use English, but American. He acknowledges the language is identical to English (the same Mr. Voronin, the President of Mo, did), but he says: It's our right to name the language we speak as we want (the same argument Voronin uses). OK, you'll say, and you'll write the WP article accordingly. But the question raised here is what would be the reasons when choosing to apply Am icon? Has Madonna changed the language by moving to Europe? What about when she's interviewed when in a transatlantic plane? This situation is identical to the one discussed here. adriatikus | talk 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More, I have screenshots of Mo governmental sites using both Mo and Ro as identifiers for the language. What would be then? Revert war? adriatikus | talk 17:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stop making up things and let's start abiding by Wikipedia policies.Xasha (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (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:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted

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 debate was keep WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outside the scope of wikipedia, more than 10 articles are using it. →AzaToth 14:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_November_13#Template:Infobox_FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted - Previous discussion have already said Keep and I affirm this. This is a spam TFD. As far as the number of articles, it just a matter of cataloging all the criminals that ever been on the list. Azatoth should take the initiative of doing this if there is too little "inclusion" and it says "Top Ten". There are only usually 10 people on the list and the template gets replaced once they are removed. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:00, 5 June 2008 (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:The Sextet Organization

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 debate was already speedy deleted by Werdna under criterion G6 (housekeeping) — Gavia immer (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:The Sextet Organization (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

No content whatsoever. In a series of pointless creations by user:Maxie martin Bit Lordy (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2008 (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:Needsinfobox

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 debate was Delete Happy‑melon 11:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I created this back in 2004(!) for use in WikiProject Albums; it's now superseded by a parameter in the ((album)) template. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Needsinfobox shows only project and talk pages linked to it. — Catherine\talk 10:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comment: When using the needs-infobox parameter in ((WPBeatles)), ((Needsinfobox)) is added under the banner instead of using one-line ((WPBannerMeta)) version. Sole example I could find is Talk:Sgt. Pepper Knew My Father. Not sure how to fix that. I've suggested a conversion at Template talk:WPBeatles. --Geniac (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (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:Damaged

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 debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discourages reparative edits and contradicts the spirit of being bold. If a prior revision of an article is in fact superior to its current revision, then that article should be reverted to the prior revision, not tagged. — Groupthink (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2008 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
PeterSymonds (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft

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 debate was delete WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing Custom Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This orphaned template, as far as I can tell only has had one article that it was placed on. The information it might convey is better stated in the lede and body of the article, hence the template is superfluous. Probably better suited as a category, not as a temporal template that takes up prime space at the top of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2008 (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:Ongoing event

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 debate was redirected to ((Current)). PeterSymonds (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ongoing event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template substantially copies the functionality of ((current)). It is orphaned. Basically superfluous. Tens or hundreds of thousands of ongoing events, activities and natural process have an article on wikipedia, from legislatures, campaigns for political office, the lives of all living persons, sessions of any legislative or diplomatic activity, wars, and on and on. Just about all of wikipedia that is about a living or active event would apply. This is unremarkable and does not need a template to say what should be in the lede or body of the article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (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:Current territorial changes

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 debate was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Current territorial changes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An orphaned template for a fairly rare and slow-moving occurance: territorial changes of some governmental entity. Superfluous, as appropriate information can be placed in the text of the article in a suitable section without taking up a prime area at the head of an article. — Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2008 (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:Current football season

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 debate was Delete. Perhaps a change of image at ((current sport)) would be appropriate, but that is no excuse for this template creep. Happy‑melon 11:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was NOT to delete, obviously but whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.247.176.147 (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Current football season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This template substantially duplicates the fuctionality of ((current sport)) and ((current sport-related)). Another example of needless temporal template proliferation. In the last month or two, a number of other templates that copied the functionality of ((current sport)) have been reveiwed and deleted:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_19#Template:Current tennis tournament
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current sport delay
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_21#Template:Current PW
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_29#Template:current motor sport

— Yellowdesk (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I note that a changed graphic does not change the fuctionality of the template and its relationship with the source it was copied from, and ((current sport)) allows the editor to specify the logo, hence my assessement that this is a redundant template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an argument for proliferation despite same fuctionality. An argument used as well for the former template "current motor sport" -- "logo doesn't work for this sport." I suggest the argument is unpersuasive, and note that ((current sport)) permits logo substitution by the editor. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2008 (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