Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27, 2006[edit]

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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AB, Template:BC and other similar templates[edit]

These templates for Canadian provinces and territories are contrary to conventions set out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template, and should be deleted for {{country|flag|CAN-AB}} and similar constructs. kelvSYC 19:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The flags are larger for a reason. Canadian provincial flags are more detailed, and should therefore be larger. Can we honestly tell the difference between the flag of Ontario and the flag of Manitoba at 20px? What's wrong with having size variations for different uses anyways? --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 19:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can make it out the difference just fine at 20px, and 20px is fine for most purposes. But by putting a 30px image, it is going against other conventions. To let it stay is to encourage redundancy, not to mention undermining the point of established conventions. kelvSYC 21:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not everyone has your perfect eye sight. The point is, the flags look ugly at 20px. Conventions aren't needed in this case, as Canadian provinces are not separate nations. The flags are always going to be used together and not with other countries, so there is no need to be consistent with other countries. The flags need to be bigger so they are more observable. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who cares about the flags anyways? Shouldn't we be able to tell what it is based on, say, the name that is next to them? This is just a duplication of existing work here. kelvSYC 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with (or Redirect to) the templates that are in accordance with the conventions in conventions set out by Wikipedia:WikiProject Flag Template (I can't tell the flag of Ontario and the flag of Manitoba apart at 30px either). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't we use both. For different uses? I find the 20px to be too small for my liking for many uses. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 09:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is inconsistent. This is an effort to impose a general decision which should be argued province-by-province. Septentrionalis 17:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I say this whole miniature flag thing just looks dumb, dumb, dumb, and the less of it there is, the better. 207.176.159.90 05:11, 4 March 2006 (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 page.
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Marxism[edit]

Speedy deleted, but overturned by a close vote on WP:DRV. Please do not speedy delete this now. My vote is below. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is the type of "political" userbox which Jimbo wants an end to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not describe a skill or area of expertise which could be useful in writing od the encyclopedia. Zocky | picture popups 09:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--AlF 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree on policy first. Then start nominating for deletion. It's the only way to be fair. --Maggu 11:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep discloses editor's pov, contributing to an open and honest atmosphere and understanding of editor's bias' which makes for a stronger and more creditable 'pediaMike McGregor (Can) 14:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mike McGregor. Chairman S. |Talk 21:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per what everyone else said.
  • Keep re above arguments. Boddah 00:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as reason by Zocky. Alibabs 00:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Userbox policy poll. --Cyde Weys 01:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above MiraLuka 03:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 10:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No need to delete this until such a time as a policy is resolved. Metamagician3000 13:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Metamagician and Mike McGregor. --Fang Aili 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not harming anyone.--Anglius 00:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mike McGregor. The war against certain political templates is ridiculous. Constanz - Talk 14:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per CSD T1 and WP:NOT. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 21:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Kaarel 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Did you pick on the anti-Marxists because you thought they were weak? StrangerInParadise 18:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want all political boxes deleted, but deleting the anti-Marxist box (twice now) while leaving the Anti-Fascist and "anti-fa" boxes alone is pathetically biased, and isn't going to work. Though I'm glad some of the communist boxes have FINALLY been deleted - among the last to be deleted, please note. So Delete this, but ONLY after the admins get their bloody act together and do it all at once. Nhprman UserLists 20:42, 4 March 2006 (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 page.
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 Reclose, wasn't reopened properly. Kusma also raised a valid point regarding other wikis (or at least one worth investigating). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babel templates[edit]

Note: This TfD has been withdrawn, as it's really a request for a bot to change over these templates, and should not have been brought to TfD at all. -- JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am re-opening this nomination. I had planned to nominate these someday, but now is as good a time as any. Once we have a "Delete" result, we can begin the bot process and start orphaning these for deletion. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has not been properly reopened, there are no TfD messages on the templates, not even on the most common ones. Kusma (討論) 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are redundant with {{userboxtop}} and {{userboxbottom}}; {{Babel-N}} or {{Babel-X}}.

  • Delete. I believe a bot may be able to automatically go through and switch all of these to one of the other templates I suggested at the top of this nomination. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (but only when they're no longer used) -- yes, now that someone's figured out how to make a "variable-size" template, having no less than 50 fixed-size ones lying around is a mess. Sounds bot-able, I'm no expert though -- Gurch 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, they won't be deleted until they've been orphaned (likely (or hopefully) by a bot going through every use and moving them to one of the newer templates mentioned at the top). But I can't stress this enough: when something is deleted at TFD, it isn't deleted right when the nomination closes; it's deleted when the template(s) are orphaned/removed from use. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you even propose deleting things without posting instructions on how to use the new templates? The Wikipedia:Babel still gives instructions on doing things the "old" way. Fix this first. You have 1,000s of wikipedians with a big ugly marked for deletion tag scrawled accross their personal bio's. Not all are template literate. Be more considerate before you make changes that affect so many people. --Mig77 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the above; first create new instructions, then you may delete these templates. --Arny 09:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've modified Wikipedia:Babel to reflect the new instructions (I opted to suggesting using {{Babel-X}}, it should be sufficient for almost anyone). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mig77 and Arny, please note that Wikipedia:Babel (and Template:Babel for that matter) actually did have instructions for these already. I put them in weeks ago. Locke Cole has now moved these instructions from 'Alternatives' to the primary suggested method. --CBDunkerson 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all above 10, the few people who can meaningfully communicate in writing in more than 10 languages can use other templates to construct their babel boxes. Those under 10 are widely used and practically never change. They don't really need to be replaced. Zocky | picture popups 09:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with doing that is that when those who do use the 10 or less babel templates decide to add more and realize there aren't any above 10, they'll get recreated. At least that's what seemed to happen with the existing babel templates (two months ago the highest they went was like 21 or something, and look at how high they are now). Besides, if we can get a bot to do the heavy lifting (which I think is very possible), it wouldn't make sense not to do them all in one go. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--AlF 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as everyone's boxes remain the same (in appearance at least) and everyone (including new users) can still use the Babel system without significant added difficulty. Ardric47 10:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I thought meta-templates were still bad per WP:AUM. The Babel-X template has 100 of them so the alternative is still better. - Bobet 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposed replacements are meta-templates? That wouldn't be good. Ardric47 10:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AUM is no longer policy. One of the developers (Brion VIBBER) has said he doesn't believe the server impact is as high as was claimed. Further, these templates are used in comparatively low-traffic parts of the site (specifically, user-space). Finally, the other alternatives don't use meta-templates, but they're a little more complicated to use; I opted to use the simplest solution when I rewrote Wikipedia:Babel. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, all of the existing Babel templates are 'meta-templates'... by design. A user calls 'Babel-5', which then calls five other templates. That's 'meta' style nesting. Yet more proof of just how 'evil' meta-templates aren't... we've been using these Babel-# meta-templates extensively for a long time. That said, the replacements are no more 'meta' than the numerous existing forms - in some cases less. --CBDunkerson 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - meta-templates are evil, and I'm re-opening this nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not because meta-templates are evil, but because having versions 1-143 of the same template is just plain stupid. — Feb. 28, '06 [05:12] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Delete, through some were created by me. The Wikipedia:Babel page should told us about the smarter way(s) of doing the same thing. --minghong 08:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, useful template. --Terence Ong 10:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. because I using manual babels in user page. -- Korean alpha for knowledge 10:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd planned to suggest this months from now when more pages had been manually converted to the alternatives (replacing the multitude was the reason I created Babel-X in the first place), but if someone can run a bot to convert these (prior to deletion of course) that'd be good. May need to be some discussion of which option to convert to though. --CBDunkerson 00:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. People from other Wikipedias who don't speak English (en-0) use these templates. I see no reason to make their Babel boxes fail. Instructions for Babel boxes in all other language Wikipedia projects need to be updated before these templates can be deleted. Actually I think this issue should be debated at meta, not here. Kusma (討論) 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't the templates created separately at the Wikipedia for each language? If so, then deleting them here should have no impact on Babel boxes elsewhere. In any case, those Babel boxes in other languages could also be replaced with these 'variable size' templates. --CBDunkerson 15:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that currently these babel templates work consistently across all Wikipedias. I can put up a Babel template on a Wikipedia whose language I hardly speak, because they are standardized. People from other language Wikipedias can use the same Babel box here as on their home Wikipedia, and they expect it to work, because these standard Babel boxes work everywhere. That is why we should keep our templates here until a consensus at meta is implemented to move all Wikipedias to a new, also consistent, Babel scheme. Kusma (討論) 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Kusma. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:17, 3 March 2006 (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 page.
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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 02:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User kon[edit]

Template:User kon(edit talk links history) only one user, see CFD. Omniplex 00:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subst and Delete or Userfy - Very narrow and seems to be largely covered by Template:User java —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 00:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per above. --Jared [T]/[+] 01:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Possibly useful expertize; and why are we meddling? Septentrionalis 06:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And FYI, Konfabulator is NOT Java… (speechless). And well, I'm the creator, so maybe I'm biased. --minghong 07:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not say that it was, merely that it is largely covered by the Java template. There is no need for over-specific userboxes any more than there is a need for any other sort of over-specific template. The fact that you, the creator, are the only one with the userbox on your page after the box has been in existance for quite some time shows that this box will never have sufficiently widespread use to be a valid template. We do not create templates for individual articles; this is no different. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we don't have this template, of course no one else will use it. Instead of deleting it, we should draw more attention about it. And Konfabulator is totally unrelated to Java, so I don't understand how it is largely covered by the Java template. Am I stupid or something? Anyway, go ahead and delete it if many of you think that this template is not important. --minghong 06:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Septentrionalis: Konfabulator is NOT the same as Java. Chairman S. | Talk 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above. (now that i know what Konfabulator is...)Mike McGregor (Can) 14:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cuiviénen. Too narrow a subject. Subst it, if you like. --Fang Aili 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Moe ε 21:32, 2 March 2006 (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 page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_27&oldid=1149976335"