Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 July 10

< July 9	July 11 >

July 10

Template:Box Office Leaders USA

I believe that we do not need a template like this. What's next? Lowest Box Office in USA? There could be so many similar templates that would soon fill the end of articles. Let's keep these at a minimum. — Steinn inn 02:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the template to clean up a long string of non-templated entries that users had been creating long-hand. The comparison to "Lowest Box Office USA" is to make a point, I realize, but it's so wide of the mark that it doesn't really apply. Box office rankings are the subject of major press coverage on a week-by-week basis and I believe adding this as a browsing function adds value to Wikipedia. - Richfife 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, say what you will, but the highest grossing film on a particular weekend does on some level represent what is on people's minds. They're voting with their asses in a way. - Richfife 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Allegations of apartheid

The main problem with this template is its use of the word 'allegations'. Allegations are, by definition, not proven, and generally represent only one side's POV. I find the existence of this template highly worrying for Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It reminds me of Category:Alleged American war criminals, which was speedily deleted, and rightly so; 'Allegations of X' is a very bad idea for any category or template. I have no issue with the main article to which this refers, Allegations of apartheid, since that is backed up by reliable sources; but a template cannot be, and is inherently POV. This one should ideally be deleted, but since it failed a TFD before, I merely suggest giving it a more encyclopaedic name such as 'Template:Modern Apartheid' or 'Template:Apartheid outside South Africa'. — Terraxos 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Category-Class

This template should be deleted and redirected to {{Cat-Class}}. There are currently two category classes for article assessments. Only one should be used. Having multiple templates for the same classification makes it more difficult to manage article assessments. — Scott Alter 01:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ISBN

The resources by which one would look-up ISBNs are available to the users of these templates. Except in the case of extraordinarily long bibliographies, the use of this template is little more than a nagging of others to expend effort that the template-user chooses not to expend. —SlamDiego_←T 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a cleanup template. That's what they do. --- RockMFR 02:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So a template that said “The first sentence needs a period at its end!” would be okay, because it would be a clean-up template? —SlamDiego_←T 02:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This template doesn't make much sense to me, but it's on 40 actual articles at the moment, in Category:Articles lacking ISBNs. If it were deleted, these articles would lose a bit of information that someone once thought would be helpful. I can't imagine thinking it would be worth using myself, but other people may have a different approach to improving reference lists. EdJohnston 03:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:B.S.S

Template created solely for use as a signature, in violation of WP:SIG. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exactly as per nominator's reason. —SlamDiego_←T 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]