The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Unencyclopedical, unrelated topics (language/sport) apparently masquerading a nationalistic bias (given so-called "national" status to the so-called "Catalan-speaking world (sic)" for a fact.
Please read a bit more elaborated reasoning at the template talk page. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a useful template. Only two of these malls are blue linked, and the rest are far too small or obscure to ever be anything more than red links (most of them are just strip malls, and it's my experience that strip malls are barely ever notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A massive redlink farm for topics that mostly don't merit separate articles. At the time of writing, there are well over 100 links to the individual members, of which 11 are currently blue. Of those, one has its own article (and probably shouldn't). There are two redirects to other articles, and the remaining eight redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, which is also linked in the foot of the template. A template to link one article to not very much else is clearly unnecessary. 217.36.107.9 ( talk) 08:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) -Arb. ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) -Arb. ( talk) 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient GB B-roads are likely to pass
WP:N to make this a viable template --
Rogerb67 (
talk)
21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There are only two games that exist for this series and hence only two existent items for this template. A template is clearly not needed for just two articles. — MuZemike ( talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much defines indiscriminate information. No use outside of a single article. Just no reason for a template such as this. Honestly, this is the kind of content that shouldn't be in articles anyway, much less a template. — Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Overly narrow template. The album and EP are interlinked, and the demos are not going to survive afd (demos are almost inherently non-notable). The only two other bluelinks aren't directly related, so this template isn't really a useful navigation hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (for now). Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This was created to disrupt a pending task force called ' British Isles Terminology task force' (a hard-won taskforce to deal with this type of thing - it is simply awaiting a neutral to open it here). At least one article is currently locked over the usage of the term "British Isles" (which includes Ireland). 6 people now have complained about this template and more are likely too. This template is being used like a sandbox, but the creator is reverting it's removal and claiming it is his own work, and nothing to do with the task force or anyone else - though he was part of the taskforce's creation. I'm sure it goes against a long list of WP policy (not least WP:OWN). Please note - I am personally not against the term 'British Isles' myself, but this template was inserted to prejudice a fair discussion, from someone with a history of disruption.— Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(a) at the moment, it lists the islands as one undifferentiated group, sorted by size. This may make it very difficult to locate particular islands, and so some structuring of the actual list may be a better way of organise it.
(b) The sorting by size is perhaps all right and may well be an innovation, as I have not seen this feature in other similar templates I have randomly dipped into. However, others may think sorting it by general place within the British Isles may be better (even by country, in fact.) Indeed, this could be the reason why I have not seen it elsewhere, as other authors of similar templates, if they have engaged in careful critical discussions about design, may have concluded it is potentially too confusing to organise it by size.
(c) If it is potentially too large a list to feasibly have (getting on for 1000 potential entries, as I implied above), then there may well have to be a decision about a feasible cut-off on a relevant criterion, which will determine whether an island is included in the template or not. If the entries in the template are ordered by size, then the obvious criterion may be one based on size, though one could also restrict it tyo inhabited islands, which would also cut down on the list. Whichever kind of cut-off criterion is decided upon, it would seem much more sensible to discuss and decide upon it before this template "went live", as it appears tohave done now.
(d)These issues have nothing to do with any supposed political agenda, or any kind of suppoosed censorship (referring to the comment about "a tiny, vocal minority with a political agenda to determine which facts can be mentioned, and which can't"). It is solely about the speed with which such a possibly worthy template has been constructed with insufficient attention to important matters of design and coverage, because of the unfeasibly large number of entries it could have. It could be potentially useful, as I stated in my expressed opinion, above, but in its present form, I think it is very much lacking.
I hope these comments are taken to be a critical yet positive comment on this template, and the comments should, I hope, be taken as my view of how any template like this might be better designed, if the decision is to delete the current one, and if there is then a will to go away and come up with a better designed one. Alternatively, if the decision is taken to keep tis template, I hope these comments are seen to be positive suggestions of how it needs to be improved as quickly as possible. DDStretch (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a subset of NPOV issues, but it is far from clear that the "issue" highlighted by this template is a problem. The fact that arguments or quotes used in an article may have also been used by an advocacy group does not automatically preclude their usage in an article, and does nto mean they are invalid or questionable- that is an ad hominem fallacy. If the quotes and/or arguments do indeed violate NPOV - we can use the pre-existing NPOV template — Canadian Monkey ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was cleaning up, not a discussion - Nabla ( talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Some one made a mess, with subpages, big bold warnings, transclusion, ... it is at:
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Unencyclopedical, unrelated topics (language/sport) apparently masquerading a nationalistic bias (given so-called "national" status to the so-called "Catalan-speaking world (sic)" for a fact.
Please read a bit more elaborated reasoning at the template talk page. Mountolive group using a loop of another pop group 23:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Not a useful template. Only two of these malls are blue linked, and the rest are far too small or obscure to ever be anything more than red links (most of them are just strip malls, and it's my experience that strip malls are barely ever notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 19:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
A massive redlink farm for topics that mostly don't merit separate articles. At the time of writing, there are well over 100 links to the individual members, of which 11 are currently blue. Of those, one has its own article (and probably shouldn't). There are two redirects to other articles, and the remaining eight redirect to B roads in Zone 1 of the Great Britain numbering scheme, which is also linked in the foot of the template. A template to link one article to not very much else is clearly unnecessary. 217.36.107.9 ( talk) 08:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) -Arb. ( talk) 12:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
( Personal attack removed) -Arb. ( talk) 14:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient GB B-roads are likely to pass
WP:N to make this a viable template --
Rogerb67 (
talk)
21:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Garion96 (talk) 09:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There are only two games that exist for this series and hence only two existent items for this template. A template is clearly not needed for just two articles. — MuZemike ( talk) 07:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much defines indiscriminate information. No use outside of a single article. Just no reason for a template such as this. Honestly, this is the kind of content that shouldn't be in articles anyway, much less a template. — Woohookitty Woohoo! 07:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete. Garion96 (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Overly narrow template. The album and EP are interlinked, and the demos are not going to survive afd (demos are almost inherently non-notable). The only two other bluelinks aren't directly related, so this template isn't really a useful navigation hub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 05:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was delete (for now). Garion96 (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
This was created to disrupt a pending task force called ' British Isles Terminology task force' (a hard-won taskforce to deal with this type of thing - it is simply awaiting a neutral to open it here). At least one article is currently locked over the usage of the term "British Isles" (which includes Ireland). 6 people now have complained about this template and more are likely too. This template is being used like a sandbox, but the creator is reverting it's removal and claiming it is his own work, and nothing to do with the task force or anyone else - though he was part of the taskforce's creation. I'm sure it goes against a long list of WP policy (not least WP:OWN). Please note - I am personally not against the term 'British Isles' myself, but this template was inserted to prejudice a fair discussion, from someone with a history of disruption.— Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
(a) at the moment, it lists the islands as one undifferentiated group, sorted by size. This may make it very difficult to locate particular islands, and so some structuring of the actual list may be a better way of organise it.
(b) The sorting by size is perhaps all right and may well be an innovation, as I have not seen this feature in other similar templates I have randomly dipped into. However, others may think sorting it by general place within the British Isles may be better (even by country, in fact.) Indeed, this could be the reason why I have not seen it elsewhere, as other authors of similar templates, if they have engaged in careful critical discussions about design, may have concluded it is potentially too confusing to organise it by size.
(c) If it is potentially too large a list to feasibly have (getting on for 1000 potential entries, as I implied above), then there may well have to be a decision about a feasible cut-off on a relevant criterion, which will determine whether an island is included in the template or not. If the entries in the template are ordered by size, then the obvious criterion may be one based on size, though one could also restrict it tyo inhabited islands, which would also cut down on the list. Whichever kind of cut-off criterion is decided upon, it would seem much more sensible to discuss and decide upon it before this template "went live", as it appears tohave done now.
(d)These issues have nothing to do with any supposed political agenda, or any kind of suppoosed censorship (referring to the comment about "a tiny, vocal minority with a political agenda to determine which facts can be mentioned, and which can't"). It is solely about the speed with which such a possibly worthy template has been constructed with insufficient attention to important matters of design and coverage, because of the unfeasibly large number of entries it could have. It could be potentially useful, as I stated in my expressed opinion, above, but in its present form, I think it is very much lacking.
I hope these comments are taken to be a critical yet positive comment on this template, and the comments should, I hope, be taken as my view of how any template like this might be better designed, if the decision is to delete the current one, and if there is then a will to go away and come up with a better designed one. Alternatively, if the decision is taken to keep tis template, I hope these comments are seen to be positive suggestions of how it needs to be improved as quickly as possible. DDStretch (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was keep. Hersfold ( t/ a/ c) 00:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears to be a subset of NPOV issues, but it is far from clear that the "issue" highlighted by this template is a problem. The fact that arguments or quotes used in an article may have also been used by an advocacy group does not automatically preclude their usage in an article, and does nto mean they are invalid or questionable- that is an ad hominem fallacy. If the quotes and/or arguments do indeed violate NPOV - we can use the pre-existing NPOV template — Canadian Monkey ( talk) 00:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The result of the debate was cleaning up, not a discussion - Nabla ( talk) 03:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Some one made a mess, with subpages, big bold warnings, transclusion, ... it is at: