Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16, 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 delete, nearly unanimously. Friday (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Expert recovery[edit]

Totally inapptopriate. No admin can just arbitrarily undelete articles and close AfD discussions without consensus, based on somebody's, anybody's, sayso. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Anti-wiki; promotes violation of WP:V. – SCZenz 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and SCZenz. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any expert can turn the tide of an AfD by providing good sources and convincing other editors that the article is worthwhile. There's no need for this. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Say-so" is not verifiable. The associated category needs the axe, as well. (Don't I remember something about evil categories that factionalize editors...?) android79 00:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably good intentions behind this, but it's just not a good idea. --W.marsh 23:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, serves no purpose other than to disparage the community consensus. An expert can prove he's an expert by providing solid arguments and sources; doing things "because I say so" is extremely unwiki. Radiant_>|< 23:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, and because it's it's a waste for templates to just be blocks of text.--Sean|Black 23:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete entirely innapropriate. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This advertises a willingness to violate wikipedia deeltion policy on request. DES (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Gamaliel 00:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but an expert's POV must be supported the old fashined way, by citations and discussion, not "because I say so". --JWSchmidt 00:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this template also includes a category, Category:Expert undeletion now on WP:CFD for the same reasons as the template. DES (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note also that I have no intention of yielding to the combined volume of y'all on this. Phil Sandifer 01:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, so the rules don't apply to you? Bedrock Wikipedia principles on verifiability and citation have to make way for your whim? Any so-called expert should have no trouble verifying facts and citing sources – even less trouble than laypeople, since their expertise presumably didn't come to them in a dream one night. Skipping citations for say-so is pure credentialism on your part. --Calton | Talk 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phil, I actually agree with you on the specific issue (I'd prefer to junk WP:DRV entirely), but please do not threaten any more wheel wars. We've had quite enough already. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a better name for "combined volume" might be consensus? DES (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Phil, would you object to a template called "Expert deletion": worded as follows:
If you can verify for me that you are a subject expert in a subject considered notable enough to include on Wikiedia, I will, on your say-so, close any deletion debate as "delete" within your field of expertise, and will delete any articles within your field that you say are not notable.
Paul August ☎ 02:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds ominous. Do you mean, you'll undelete it if it's deleted? Please, no. ~~ N (t/c) 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This looks like it might as well be named {{I'd like to have a wheel war}}. Take disputed deletions to WP:DRV. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete, but preferably not speedy, if only because speedy deletion of templates has a bad name right now. This is some of the most unwiki, anti-consensus crap I've ever seen. ~~ N (t/c) 03:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, I think WP:DRV is a mess, and I don't like good articles to be deleted, but we've had way too much ignoring of the rules lately. I'd prefer to actually change undeletion policy so that it is more in line with "When in doubt, don't delete". Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send it to the Guillotine --God of War 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely outside all realms of process and policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but its not a dictatorship either. No admin should be designating "experts" to override consensus. --Rob 08:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely unacceptable attempt to bypass Wikipedia rules & procedures. —gorgan_almighty 14:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: my understanding of what this template is intended to mean is that in the case of an AFD discussion which consists mostly of people saying "nn, never heard of it/them, delete", if someone who can prove their credentials is able to say "actually this person/thing is notable to anybody who has actually studied the field, we really should have an article on them/it in Wikipedia or we'll just be embarrassing ourselves", this should be noted in the discussion; in the event that the "nn" crowd are unwilling to accept that their ignorance is indeed proving an embarrassment then this argument should be given much greater weight. Whether or not a speedy close is justified would presumably depend on the vacuity of the "delete the bastard whether or not their actually notable: if I haven't heard of them they shouldn't be allowed to be notable" arguments which ensue. I'm tending towards keep, except that I'm not convinced that the template is the appropriate way to do whatever was intended. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 17:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But nobody ever votes "never heard of them, delete". This is a straw man argument. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're tweaking me, right? I know I'm hopelessly naïve, I didn't know I wasn't alone ☺ —Phil | Talk 08:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus above. It's bad enough that wikipedia has a user that posts death threats about how other editors make him "really feel" "like killing";[1] it's even more ridiculous for that user to expect to base deletion discussions on his idea of verifying the expertise of other editors. It's sort of a Catch-22 of "I disagree with you and that makes me feel like killing, but maybe I'd respect your opinions more if you just told me your full name and what school you teach at." – Dragonfiend 20:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless I can be the expert. Postdlf 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Template:Wheel_war - oh, that would be a problem? Ok, Delete. If an expert shows up and comments, the article will be undeleted anyway, if current procedures are followed. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And exactly how does Snowspinner plan to verify the expertise? Is there an ISO process I don't know about? Will he be accepting certificates from The Institute of Big Domes and Know-It-Alls? Will he share with us the standards he will use to determine that "Some editors are more equal than others"? --Calton | Talk 00:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and maybe send to BJAODN. If any template ever qualified for speedy deletion, surely this is it. This is an open declaration of intent to abuse admin tools, as well as an admission of either misunderstanding or non-acceptance of WP:V and WP:NOR. I'm as big a supporter of IAR as you can find, but verifiability is a core editorial policy and not a "rule" subject to being ignored. Friday (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboxify, I'm sure he'd love that >:-) (or just delete) the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speaking of that, where are all the free speech advocates that come out in full force when userboxes are up for deletion? (-: Oh, and delete. JYolkowski // talk 02:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Completely unacceptable attempt to go against the consensus policy that Wikipedia is founded upon. Andrew Lenahan - Star blind 18:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. It goes against the core policy of WP:V and the assumption that Wikipedia is built on reasoned discussion. Pilatus 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - the users above have stated the reason in much better ways. Jeekc 11:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Template seeks to undermine deletion process, rule of consensus. Xoloz 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Mrfixter 19:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, wholly inappropriate. – FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 04:05, Jan. 20, 2006
  • Speedy delete. Ian13ID:540053 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sort of behavior this template promises should not even be permitted in Wikipedia, let alone templatized. Experts are perfectly capable of defending their views in deletion debates just like everyone else. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive delete. This is or appears to be an attempt to circumvent Wikipedia consensus, to start. Provokes wheel wars and is quite unfair. A real expert would be able to cite enough sources to have the article kept if it merits keeping. Keeping or undeleting articles on someone's say-so is utterly out of order. See this RFC. Stifle 16:28, 25 January 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 speedy kept, per my misinterpretation of WP:SOCK →AzaToth 11:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sock Puppet[edit]

Template:User Sock Puppet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete – user of this template must be banned →AzaToth 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I said on the template talk page - this has several legitimite uses.
  • Bots
  • Users with specialized accounts for only editing a certain area of wikipedia such as chinese history or something.
  • Users who created a new account in good faith because they didn't like their old user name.
  • And Cyde who seems to be collecting all boxes ever made.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Day (talk • contribs) .
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 speedy kept, per my misinterpretation of WP:SOCK →AzaToth 11:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Puppet Master[edit]

Template:User Puppet Master (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete – user of this template must be banned →AzaToth 17:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as I thought this was pretty funny. Banning the user is WAY too harsh. --D-Day 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has several legitamite uses:
  • Bots
  • User's with specialized accounts for only editing a certain area of wikipedia such as chinese history or something.
  • User who created a new account in good faith because they didn't like their old user name.
  • Users with a bad sense of humor.
  • And Cyde who seems to be collecting all boxes ever made.
  • Keep this box.--God of War 19:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as this template is only created for humor. SycthosTalk 21:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per God of war and Sycthos. --RBlowes 21:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, personal attack on user. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the users using this box put it on their own user page.--God of War 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but if someone puts it on another user's page against that user's will, that action could be considered a personal attack. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep it seems like a good idea to let people who run bots know, but I wonder about the effect this may have. --James S. 04:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless userbox Nohat 05:04, 17 January 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 Delete Tedernst | talk 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Coor dms2[edit]

Template:Coor dms2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete – Fork of {{coor dms}}, created due to limitations. However these have now be addressed in the main template. Redundant. Thanks/wangi 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to repetitions. SycthosTalk 21:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BlankVerse 13:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - • Dussst • T | C 19:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as long as we fix the main template... I'm assuming it's been fixed from what I've read though. SportingFlyer 02:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, {{coor dms}} now word wraps in the right place. Thanks/wangi 20:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Xol 22:46, 25 January 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 →AzaToth 07:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Last.fm[edit]

Template:Last.fm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete – This template is being used to add link-spam for a commercial service to various artists' articles. It's not like the IMDb template which links users to additional non-commercial info, it's a link to commercial site. CLW 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC) CLW 09:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't know what your definition of commercial is, but while the site may be commercial, the info is available freely under a Creative Commons license. --Milko Krachounov 16:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we do not use templates for linking to other sites, except for WikiMedia sisterprojects. Radiant_>|< 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - CLW, I oppose the deletion of this template. Your reasoning is not sufficient for deletion to take place as you have not proven that the template meets the criteria for deletion. You use IMDB as a comparison for value of the last.fm web site. IMDB is a commercial site whose data is very much commerical and non-free. Contrast this to Last.fm which makes its data freely available under the Creative Commons license for non-commerical use. IMDB is actually less free and more restrictive than last.fm with their data. If you still feel that this template should be deleted, I look forward to your detailed rebuttal. Be sure to specify which criteria for deletion the template does not meet and explain why you believe it falls short. – Mperry 22:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MPerry Radiant Stifle 00:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MPerry voted keep. --James S. 04:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad, I was reading his comment under Radiant's vote and managed to screw up who I was agreeing with. Stifle 11:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. There is ample precedent of deleting these kinds of templates. The IMDB template is the exception, not the rule. You really need to give a good reason for having a non-sister-project link template. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reasons that the Last.fm template is useful: 1. Templates exist to enforce consistency when the same object needs to be represented on many different pages. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of articles about recording artists in Wikipedia. People such as myself put links to Last.fm, and other sites like MusicBrainz, in the external links section of these articles. The template ensures that the presentation of this link and where it goes to is consistent among all artists. If Last.fm changes how they link to artist pages only the template need be updated once. Computer time is far cheaper than human time. Without a template the links could be entered in various formats which would need to be reviewed and cleaned up by humans. 2. The official Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not forbid it. 3. Significant precident already exists in favor of non-sister-project external link templates with no evidence to the contrary. 4. There hasn't been any cited evidence that linking to external, non-sister-project sites in a template shouldn't be done, except for where those templates deliberately misrepresent themselves as being an official sister-project. I have made a good faith effort over the last three hours researching your claims and have yet to find any evidence to support them. You are an admin, Titoxd, which means you are setting an example for other users. You should have already linked to supporting documents on the site when you originally posted your claims rather than have us ask. – Mperry 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite precident to substantiate your assertion that "There is ample precedent of deleting these kinds of templates." I reviewed the TfD logs for all of the deleted templates for the last 12½ months. The only reference to deleting templates to external links were where the templates were misrepresenting themselves as Wikipedia sister-project boxes. The last.fm template doesn't do that. There is no evidence in the logs to support your claim. – Mperry 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the IMDB template is an exception, please state why and cite evidence. I reviewed the TfD logs from September 2004 to the present. There is no mention of the IMDB templates being up for deletion. There is also no discussion of deletion or any controvery about the existence of the templates on the talk pages for the IMDB templates (1, 2, 3). – Mperry 04:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also have access to the TFD logs, and have access to the Special:Undelete tool. From those, I can find the following instances of external link templates being deleted, just by looking at the logs from here to August: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. I didn't look for more farther back since I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'm sure there must be some. However, you do bring up a good point: there is no agreed guideline on external link templates. I didn't ask the evidence originally, as I remembered most of these deletions and thought they would be significant precedent, but thanks for calling me on that (and being civil at the same time, I've had my share of incivility lately). Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no good reason for the proposed deltion being offered. DES (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fairly Strong Keep This is an ads- and optional subscription-supported music recommendation service. It could be considered linkspam, but if you read the parent project description, you might be more inclined to agree that this is a useful addition to the couple dozen places they've added it. They use the MusicBrainz community music metadatabase which seems very much in the spirit of wikipedia. I would even go so far as to suggest merging it with Template:Infobox_band as an option controlled by a boolean parameter. --James S. 04:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Mperry. —gorgan_almighty 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mperry; Visor 09:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mperry; Anthrt 16:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per Mperry; Jon Dowland 23:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme Delete. It's a commercial website. The website is most useful only if you register and use their plugins. The website has numerous limitations as listed at Last.fm. Finally, the coup de grace, the website isn't worth linking to from the Wikipedia. BlankVerse 13:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1. "It's a commerical website." So is IMDB. What's your point? 2. "The website is most useful only if you register and use their plugins." I disagree. It's 'most useful' if you register only if you are wanting to listen to music. For those of us that wish to conduct research into musical relationships, and the people who form those relationships, it's quite valuable without having to create an account. Plenty of data is available from the site. For example, I have been looking into the people who are subscribed to the Classical group and examining their overall musical taste based on their individual profiles. One thing I am trying to discover is what other non-classical music do these people listen to. It's quite facinating. All of the profile data for these users are available in XML from the Last.fm web site under the Creative Commons license. I plan on putting this data into GNU R to do some more analysis. I haven't even gotten around to how those people tag their music and comparing that to how other people tag the same music. 3. "the website isn't worth linking to from the Wikipedia" I disagree. Just because you aren't willing to examine past the surface of a site to see what uses it has for research doesn't make it not worth linking to. I think there's a huge potential to use this site's data for examining music sociology. – Mperry 17:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete now no real uses Dannycas 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as per Mperry. -- parasti (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Nothing to add on top of Mperry's arguments. – Sneltrekker†My Talk 12:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't realise I was editing a log. Was linked here and didn't notice the correct page title. Sneltrekker†My Talk
  • keep the arguments about "commercial site" and "registering" are non-arguments : IMDb or allmusic.com have their templates and are also commercial or may ask you to register (well, actually almost anything is commercial, also the geo/roadmap sites you can reach through the coords project) --LimoWreck 10:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Reason being: The template is essentially advertising. If you allow one template to advertise a site, then you must allow templates to advertise all sites of this manner. Also, having looked at Last.Fm, i have found no reason why it should not simply be put under as an Ecternal Link like all websites pertaining to any band, artist or musical genre is. As such, a template is needless and is advertising, and having it would allow for any website to make one. Leyasu 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • which proves you didn't have a look at the last.fm template. People just "put it under external link like all websites", so that argument doesn't make any sense. It just makes the link more easier to handle— Preceding unsigned comment added by LimoWreck (talk • contribs)


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 →AzaToth 07:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Communism sidebar[edit]

Template:Communism sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Keep. Of course we should keep it! Communism is one of the largest government systems!

AtrusTheGuildmaster 01:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – Not NPOV. Saboteur 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why not? Dahn 06:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To expand on Dahn, to refer to something as Communism or related to Communism is not an accusation or POV. It is a generally agreed upon fact. Communists themselves are not insulted by others referring to their views as such. If you are saying it is POV in favor of Communism, I see absolutely no evidence of that. Superm401 | Talk 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems NPOV to me. --Snaxe920 07:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, especially considering it was created so the Communism page wasnt one giant complaint against communism (Gibby 08:49, 16 January and Keep the communism page.2006 (UTC))

In no way am I saying that it's POV in favor of Communism. I'm a communist myself, and that's why I give a toss about the template.
I'm proposing it is deleted because it cannot be decided what to include in the schools of thought section. It is an endless battle for anyone to include a new school of thought in there. This stems from issues regarding the length of the column. Therefore it is a point of view regarding what is relevent enough to include. The same thing can be said regarding the related subjects section.
Templates should be created to provide quick facts in an easy to see way. If you want to see all the related subjects, then that's what the categories are for. --Saboteur 09:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot see what the problem is, Saboteur. The template is well thought of, and it is not at all overwhelming in size (in fact, it is quite thin on the "Countries" sections). The doctrines are well specified and all covered. There are (and I guess there will be more) templates for ramifications. See for example thisun on this page Unity Centre of Communist Revolutionaries of India (Marxist-Leninist).Dahn 09:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template as it is as I'm writing about it is satisfactory. The problem is that it encounters a new edit war every fortnight because someone wants to include something else. I myself fought a long battle to get council communism included. It is for reasons of size, and if you look further back in it's history you'll know what I mean, that not all schools of thought, all "communist states", all related subjects, can be included. And that is where the problem stems from. That it is POV to decide what is relevent enough to include, and what is not. That's why the template shoud be deleted, and the schools of thought and "communist states" section be perhaps given their own [horizontal?] templates so that it is possible to include all relevent articles. As for related subjects, well that what Categories are for. --Saboteur 10:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems of size have died out a long time ago. They were caused by an attempt to include every single communist leader and every single Communist state. The branches of communism are comparatively few in number, so there would be nothing wrong with including them all. – Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 16:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and protect it to fourthern edit wars. Sitenl 13:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You don't delete a template because you can't decide what to put in it. —gorgan_almighty 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This template is satisfactory. --Scaife 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... keep. I think that Saboteur has some good points. The hart of the problem seems to be that the meaning of Communism is hottly disputed. For example; to some it makes no sense to even talk about Communist States. However, could the same not be said about Christianity or Islam both of which manage to have templates? The template must (unfortunatly) try to cover all differnt (major) schools that are either called or call themselves communist. Prehaps if you could create some proposed alternative templates you might come closer to convincing people to delete this one.--JK the unwise 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is nothing wrong with this template. SycthosTalk 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we keep this, does that mean that a well-known vandal is correct?  :) Radiant_>|< 22:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it could be used to prove that WikipediA has Communism, but to be able to refute that you'd have to delete a T0N of encyclopedia stuff. 68.39.174.238 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This template is is helpful and informative, there are such a wide range of topics and parties to be addressed and the primary schools are covered here. Many ideology and religion templates fail to include the thousands of variants and sects that are encompassed by their topic. This template does a fine job of linking to the most influential, largest, and most important parties, ideologies, and viewpoints associated with communism. Solidusspriggan 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What are we going to do deny the history of communism because some of us don't like it?--Taboo Tongue 19:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, no one suggested that at all. You're an idiot. --Saboteur 09:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It looks pretty informative and useful to me. If there are POV problems, the solution is to fix them, not to delete the template. We do not delete things just because people disagree about them. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. I cannot understand how any aspiring contributor or reader to an encyclopaedia would want this template removed. Once again, typically, people confuse political convictions with encyclopaedic information.--The Gnome 11:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Saboteur is too Machist/Bogdanovist on this point. In the end, all words are only abstractions which, by their very nature, can never completely correspond to reality and can always be disputed. – ActiveSelective 20:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with it. GVasil 12:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AdelaMae.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 21:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep though maybe you could look at rearranging the template so there'd be an easy way to indicate that there are other schools of communism, for example, not on the template? The template is far too useful to delete because of edit wars, but that doesn't mean the edit wars aren't a problem requiring solution. Zabieru 06:27, 28 January 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 delete →AzaToth 07:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free UK Government licenses[edit]

{{QualificationsandCurriculumAuthorityCopyright}} - Qualifications and Curriculum Authority material; {{LandRegistryCopyright}} - Land Registry material; {{TeacherTrainingAuthorityCopyright}} - Teacher Training Agency material; and {{Ordnance Survey Copyright}}. Image copyright tags, I could only find one case of any of the four templates being included on an image. Image copyright page instructs that images from these sources cannot be included in Wikipedia. Delete all--nixie 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. JYolkowski // talk 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. First three are non-commercial. Restrictions on the last type are just ridiculous. Superm401 | Talk 07:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. SycthosTalk 21:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as invalid vote. This is part of a WP policy/guideline, specifically the guideline on tagging images, and is not valid material for here. Stifle 00:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. These are templates that violate current Wikipedia policy. No one is suggesting a change to the policy. —gorgan_almighty 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tagged images then delete templates. Incompatable with image use policies. —gorgan_almighty 14:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as we can see which images to delete. We like people to admit where their images come from. Secretlondon 13:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In all of these cases, they just need to be tagged with {{from a source that can't be used on the wikipedia}}. BlankVerse 13:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    People are very unlikely to tag an image they are uploading with "cannot be used in the Wikipedia". It would be nice if this sort of thing was brought to the attention of the image taggers rather than hidden away on a deletion page. Secretlondon 03:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BlankVerse 13:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very broken - I've stuck details of these votes on 2 pages where people who are involved in image tagging are likely to see them. See Wikipedia_talk:Untagged_images#Tags on Templates for deletion and Wikipedia_talk:Image_copyright_tags#Tags on Templates for deletion. Maybe we need a policy on image tags - it would seem more helpful than half a dozen people deciding to delete something on an obscure page. Secretlondon 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. The benefit of these sort of tags is that people will tag stuff with them and then we can find it and zap it. We don't want to encourage people to lie or be wrong about the source of content. Can anyone do a cost/benefit analysis as to how much bad stuff this encourages versus how much bad stuff can be zapped if people are honest enough to admit they stole? Morwen - Talk 14:38, 26 January 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 Delete Tedernst | talk 00:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UNPhotoArchive[edit]

Image copyright tag incompatible with policy on non-commercial images and not used on any images, delete.--nixie 02:13, 16 January 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.

Template:SilentRedirect[edit]

The result of the debate was delete Tedernst | talk 23:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Template:SilentRedirect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[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 Speedy delete (substantial recreation). Radiant_>|< 00:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Su[edit]

Template:Su (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete – Ok, this has already been discussed before once and maybe even twice. Also, Template:Support is now protect to prevent recreation, so this is a just a little ridiculous. The main issue is again server load and the fact that this discourages actual discussion on voting. Also note that although I haven't combined them, would it be appropriate to consider Template:StSu, Template:Op, Template:StOp, Template:Ne, Template:Ct, Template:Ke, Template:StKe, Template:Dt, Template:StDt as well? Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Ricky81682 (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied as recreation. The user claims that the concerns about server load can safely be ignored. That is plainly and simply wrong. Radiant_>|< 00:49, 16 January 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 →AzaToth 07:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-old-50[edit]

Template:PD-old-50 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:PD-art-life-50 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete – Under no circumstances do works enter the public domain in the US 50 years after the author's death. Both Template:PD-old-50 and Template:PD-art-life-50 must be deleted. If someone disputes this, please provide a source. I am basing this nomination on Cornell's public domain reference. Superm401 | Talk 07:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Superm401 | Talk 07:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)(Nomination rescinded. Superm401 | Talk 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I did not misread the templates. David Newton miswrote them, and the consequences could have been extremely serious. The templates provided no reason the image should be legal in the United States other than the implicit but false cause of the author being dead 50 years. The legality of the image in the United States is always a primary criteria for an acceptable image. Because your templates failed to address this, they were worthless and I was right to nominate them. Now, I have correctly written them. They explain why the image is legal in the United States; a sidenote adds that it is legal in some other countries. Naturally, I was concerned that others had misinterpreted the meaning of the templates. I went through the images using them, and was able to verify that all but one were legal. I have removed the template from that image and marked it no source. I also had to make several corrections in Wikipedia and User space because all descriptions of the template indicated it was usable any time the author had been dead 50 years. This invalid description was even on WP:ICT. It is necessary to consider the consequences more thoroughly when creating image templates. Superm401 | Talk 06:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You simply do not know what you are talking about in this case and you have obviously completely mis-read the templates in question. The templates both say, "…because its copyright has expired in the United States and those countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 50 years." If a work was published in the United States before 1923, and the author died in 1955 or earlier the work is in the public domain in the United States. The date that matters for the United States is the publication year of 1923. The date that matters in the rest of the world is the date of the death of the author.

The templates refer to two separate conditions which govern copyright expiry. One in the United States and one in those countries that are still life of the author plus fifty years. It is perfectly possible for something that was published in 1922 to be in copyright outside the United States so if I did not read the template correctly I could claim that a publishing date of 1922 or earlier could never mean that the work is out of copyright in the United Kingdom. David Newton 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep User:David Newton is correcte. However, rewrite to make this cleaer – the current tempalte could easily fool people intop thinkign that any work whos author died more than 50 years ago is thereby in the PD, even if it was published after 1923, which is not correct. DES (talk) 00:17, 17 January 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 delete. —Cryptic (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Romanian cities Infobox[edit]

Template:Romanian cities Infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete – Orphaned. Duplicated by Template:Romanian cities infobox Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   22:11, 16 January 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_January_16&oldid=1089796781"