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 template is unsourced (despite that it looks like it has sourcing, the link doesn't provide the correct data), the template includes two storms from this year for which there is no reliable estimation, and it includes a column (Size HSI) which isn't officially used by any agency. Some other tropical cyclone members should stop by soon and voice their opinion. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Iwithdraw, in light of recent development. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, unless reliable sources can be added to back up the data. –JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that a template for largest hurricanes is overall a good idea (as is one for smallest hurricanes and TCs), but as it stands now the template would need to be more heavily sourced in order to pass. ~AH1(TCU) 01:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We can't just go around deleting every article without referencing...if we did, many of our stub and start articles would not be in wikipedia. This is a potentially useful template. After checking the extended best track database, it appears that gale radii were used for storm size (after checking Gilbert,) because the ROCI numbers are much larger than seen in this table. Is the original editor who created the article still in wikipedia? I'd like to know what they used for Carla, since it is before 1988. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an article. It's a template which did not provide a source. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MostAll of the size entries are sourced now, using primary sources. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, also i notice that it uses the HSI index which is not used by the NHC thus is unoffical Jason Rees (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The HSI value could be deleted from the table easily enough, if it's a deal breaker. As it is, the table is going to need metric conversions to km anyhow. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep if the Hurricane Severity Index data is removed and replaced with ROCI data; failing that, delete. I've looked for a while, and I haven't found anywhere where the HSI's methodology to measure size is described, and requests for this information in the template creator's talk page have not been responded to. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the table uses gale radii and HSI has been removed. If the preference is for ROCI instead, the changes can be made easy enough. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which database is more comprehensive? Radii of outermost closed isobar or gale radii? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. The Atlantic hurricane reanalysis is adding ROCI data for the time of landfall for TCs (1899-1920 done, and there are numbers from NHC from 1988-2008.) I've been working on adding information pre-1988, but the work is slow. However, the two versions of the extended best track have gale and hurricane radii back to 1851 (somehow), but the values were not "best tracked" prior to 2002 or 2003, meaning their quality is in question. From what I understand, ROCI isn't "best tracked" at all. I'd have to look at the documentation as to how they were determined prior to 1988, because the values in the source look surprisingly exact. So far, I'm only adding hurricanes (just hurricanes because that is the name of the template) from 1950 onward into the template until I can check over the documentation. The important thing is that when it comes to TC size, either quantity can be used. It appears at this time that gale radius is better documented than ROCI, based on data entries made in the extended best track. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a consensus for scope/inclusion can't be created, this could be changed into an article, and thusly ranked by more than one criterion. The best of both worlds seems like a good compromise to me. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:00, 1 January 2009 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 10:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A nav template seems rather unnecessary for only three films, especially when only one of them is bluelinked. PC78 (talk) 19:24, 29 December 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.
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.
This template is problematical as it could be rather inflammatory if used during content disputes and would constitute a personal attack to label someone's presumably good faith edits as "hate speech" via this tag, particularly in the context of Eastern Europe topic area and its heightened tensions. Martintg (talk) 11:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have updated the documentation to clearly state that the template should only be applied when the offensive teksti is based on reliabe sources containing the hatefull material, and that any unsourced or poorly sourced derisory comments should be removed instantly. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any unsourced derisory comments that require this template should be removed instantly as per WP:BLP etc., not tagged for future clean-up. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The purpose of the tag is to poison the well in what could otherwise be reasonable discussion over content. Obviously, the template is not meant to be used for real hate speech -- real hate speech is easy to identify and can be removed immediately without any discussion needed. Thus, the tag violates established policies such as WP:AGF, WP:NPOV and, as said above, WP:BLP. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serves no purpose other than a weapon in edit-warring. We already have NPOV tags to cover genuine disputes. --Folantin (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst I understand the sentiments behind its creation, hate speech, particularly poorly sourced or WP:FRINGE, should be deleted on sight, not tagged. --RussaviaDialogue 19:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an example of template-induced instruction creep or "template creep." Obvious hate speech should be removed on sight and less obvious or contested statements should be discussed on the talk page.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This template is unnecessary. There are WP policies that deal with hateful content, so instead of removing it, we should advertise it? --Hillock65 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both of the current inclusions are completely inappropriate, as they're applied to quotations of potential hate speech, which are perfectly acceptable. There's no potential use for this, either... either the text is editorial hate speech, in which case it should be removed, or it's being quoted, in which case there's no action necessary. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons above. -Drdisque (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has potential utility but this is outweighed by its likelihood of creating animosity. If you don't feel the need to remove the offensive text immediately, milder templates such as {{fact}} and {{clarify}} are sufficient. Randall Bart Talk 19:09, 30 December 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.
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 discussion was speedy deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article, not a template. Article Tirumala Venkateswara Temple already exists with this information. Incorrect usage of Template namespage. Speedy delete suggested. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a mistake made by editor not familiar with process. Speedy delete. Binksternet (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, and inform the user of the mistake. Indeed, this is an obvious mistake by a newbie. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:40, 29 December 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.
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 discussion was delete. JPG-GR (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (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 section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JPG-GR (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. More templates formed for the purpose of having templates. Binksternet (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - provides unnecessary images in debates for the sake of saving a couple of keystrokes. And debates are not votes anyway. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 14:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just as found in the above-cited consensus, there just is no need for these templates. While the harm their existence does is minor -- it just may lead some people to think that using a template to !vote is in some way more formal than voting in the good ol' way --, it's still sufficient to delete these templates. 82.131.110.99 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extensive past discussion has established that we don't want voting templates. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I use them to make such processes easier for me, so can it be moved to my userspace?--Ipatrol (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly can put them in your own userspace.. but is it really easier to type out {{User:Ipatrol/Vote-Support}} than it is to type out '''Support'''? 29 characters versus 13 characters. -✰ALLST☆R✰echo 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for all the reasons above. If consensus is to keep them, they need to be renamed. Calling them "vote" templates implies that we vote on Wikipedia. We don't we discuss and hopefully reach consensus. We state our opinions as "keep", "delete", etc, but these are not votes. Grutness...wha? 22:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MyOpinion: I Support deletion, and Oppose keeping them. I am Neutral about the "this promotes the idea that we're voting" thing, though I realize that it is Possible. EVula// talk // ☯ // 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using all 5 templates in their own TfD? That must be some kind of record :P. RichardΩ612Ɣɸ 13:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per long-standing consensus against these templates. That said, EVula should subst the templates so the joke can be understood after the TFD concludes... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per allstar's comment, While it would be easier to type out '''Support''' than {{User:Ipatrol/Vote-Support}}, I use images because 1) I like how it looks, and 2) it makes it more readable at a glance so without the template at all I would have to type [[File:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]] '''Support''' so I would like this closed with a move conclusion and it will be moved on the same day.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2009 (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.
Delete It's an example of template-induced instruction creep or "template creep." Obvious hate speech should be removed on sight and less obvious or contested statements should be discussed on the talk page.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Delete and userfy as needed. Oh, irony. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 01:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion: I 
Oppose keeping them. I am 
Neutral about the "this promotes the idea that we're voting" thing, though I realize that it is 
Possible. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
