Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:39, 14 January 2006

< January 13	>

Template:User Google Delete. Sole purpose seems to be to advertise the Google search engine. What is a Wikipedian supposed to do with this knowledge? Advise the fellow to try some of the alternatives? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Harmless, doesn't hurt anyone.(Believe it or not) --D-Day 20:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. What's the harm? Morgan695 20:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Helps Wikipedians know how the individual may come up with some of their info/conclusions. - Etcher 20:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep What were you thinking when you nominated this? There are a range of search engine-related userboxes used by many people. This userbox is used by many people, causes no offence, breaks no rule. I see no reason to delete it at all! - Bourbons3 ^{T | C} 20:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case for speedy keep. The way to find out how someone comes to his conclusions is to discuss them with him. Seriously, is there any reason, other than product endorsement, to use this userbox? If not, then it is simply viral advertising and I am inclined to the opinion that it should be deleted for the same reason that we delete linkspam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sprotected-small

Template:Sprotected-small
Delete — substandard in design, text too small to be read, message is wrong (the consensus when discussing semi-protection wordings elsewhere is not to use that wording) yet is being forced onto 1 article in place of the standardised text everyone else is using, is better worded, better designed, which contains a font large enough to be read and which everyone is working to perfect. This template is pointless and duplicates a far better designed, more user-friendly alternative. It also duplicates Template:Sp-sprotected. We don't need two templates for the same thing, much less three, two of whom seem to have been designed just to use on one page. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much less obtrusive than the sprotect template, which seems to have its own problems that are still being ironed out. In general I believe that the massive boxes are overkill; a line or two in italics at the top of the article, as in this template is far preferable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't even read this at my browser's regular font size. Useless. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notices like s-protect are meant to be noticed. This one is just too small and not as constructive or useful as the existing one. Its like having too many chefs in a kitchen. There should be a standard s-protect template that everyone should use - «ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3» ^{T | C} 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Parody

Template:Parody
Delete — This tag doesn't meet our criteria for Wikipedia:Fair use, as it seems to encourage use of fair use outside the article space, among other reasons. Furthermore, the images that it's used on don't really seem to be parodies anyway. 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)JYolkowski // talk

Template:DB:LDBsa

Template:DB:LDBsa
Delete. — Presumably designed to reduce the effort needed to make a link to different sections of the page List of Dragon Ball special abilities, however it doesn't save many key strokes and seems to be, if anything, harder than just writing out [[List of Dragon Ball special abilities#whatever section]]. --Qirex 13:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User exports bad drivers

Template:User exports bad drivers
Delete — This template shows and supports a negative feeling towards the country of France and implies an on going war. I do not believe these ideas belong on Wikipedia. It has no purpose and does not communicate an idea other then that that user dislikes France. It also struck me that it is border line racism and I don't think that should be allowed on Wikipedia. (I'm still a newbie though and will respect any decision, just please consider) Flying Canuck 05:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? What race? DirkvdM 07:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He tells the border line racism...
Now imagine u swap France by Israel, and it begins racism! 193.252.213.100 09:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it serves no purpose other than to ridicule another country.--MONGO 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by pelting with garlic, frogs legs and hairy female armpits (ick). Yes its racist, even if it is a joke: this kind of thing is why France has laws banning many American films (to "protect the culture"), the more stuff like this that goes on the greater the reaction. you're not helping and promoting yet more cultural/national apartheid. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Racist and redneck userbox. --Darwinek 15:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some guy changed it to Iran and that's no better. Ashibaka tock 16:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't even tell what it's supposed to mean, but it doesn't sound good. ~~ N (t/c) 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A personal attack to all french. Ian¹³_ID:540053 19:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Angelo 19:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied (noting the presence of strong consensus to delete) as an attack template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linkimage

Template:linkimage
Delete. — This template is intrinsically POV as, by using it, we are taking it upon ourselves to judge the "obscenity" of an image, which is a matter of opinion. For example, if I were the type of person to censor things, I would place this on our Holocaust images, and not pictures like lolicon or autofellatio (which I have no problem with seeing). Simply put, it's unsuitable for the nature of Wikipedia and its use breaks our policy on neutrality. I'd rather not be long-winded, so you can adapt most of what I've said at Talk:Lolicon#image to this template. // paroxysm (n) 03:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions. No vote. Ashibaka tock 03:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though Wikipedia is not censored, some images do not need to be in a persons face right off the bat.--MONGO 11:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth in it's foul wake — Next the template will be used on religion articles for links to sites critical of the religion, or sites displaying bare skin of more than just the face (for the misogynist group of religions), or sites critical of governments, or sites containing swear words. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 13:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slippery slope. This template has been used on 2 articles in 11 months. Ashibaka tock 15:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. Once put that way it seems clear the argument you provide is irrelevant to the current discussion. No one has suggested the template should be kept/removed to protect/corrupt minors. Mikkerpikker 13:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mistress Selina Kyle and paroxysm's concerns none withstanding, the template has ended long standing edit wars at lolicon and autofellatio. Moreover, the template is being used in the latter article per a Jimbo decree & received overwhelming community support there (see Talk:Autofellatio/Image polls and discussions). Wikipedia is not censored, certainly, but nor is it a shock or porn site and it surely needs to respect people's views & rights enough to not force them to commit crimes or view images they may find disturbing.... Mikkerpikker 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have some misgivings about the POV it projects, and it probably will always project some kind of vibe regardless of the wording – after all, it reflects an opinion that the image should not be shown inline. However, this is a necessary tool for use in a small minority of articles such as those mentioned by Mikkerpikker. The template is obviously not suitable for use in some articles where it amounts to pointless censorship, but that is a matter for debate on those articles and shouldn't be cause to delete a tool useful in some situations. --Qirex 14:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about minors (although I am one); it's about appropriate warning. On internet forums, people take care to warn you before linking you to an image that is considered not work safe (NWS). I for one do not want to be caught in an inappropriate situation. :p This template is not used for censorship, IMO; it's used to avoid causing unnecessary problems for our readers that can easily be averted on our part. Minors who want to check out a man sucking himself off can easily do so by clicking. There's no censorship. The only argument I can think of in favour of opposing this template would be that adult users are inconvenienced. I do not think one mouse click, however, outweighs the potential embarassment/explanation that other users (adults, minors or otherwise) might have to go through if this template didn't exist. (In case it wasn't clear, I strongly favour keeping this template.) Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep per Johnleemk. Censorship would be deleting the image. This is just politeness to people at work/school. ~~ N (t/c) 17:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikkerpikker. A necessary tool. as Qirex said. There is a pragmatic reason for this. Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg and a few others are so popular with vandals that the images are prevented from direct use in pages. Linking to them is the only way to reference them in appropriate articles - this template makes it convenient. In any case, simply deleting this template wouldn't (a) prevent people for linking the old-fashioned way (as I did in this comment) or (b) make it possible to put the autofellatio guy et al into articles. FreplySpang (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 *'''Keep'''.  Much less obtrusive than the sprotect template, which seems to have its own problems that are still being ironed out.  In general I believe that the massive boxes are overkill; a line or two in italics at the top of the article, as in this template is far preferable. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - I can't even read this at my browser's regular font size. Useless. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Notices like s-protect are meant to be noticed. This one is just too small and not as constructive or useful as the existing one. Its like having too many chefs in a kitchen. There should be a standard s-protect template that everyone should use - [[Image:Union flag 1606 (Kings Colors).svg|20px|UK]] [[User:Bourbons3|'''«ßØÛ®ßÖÑ§3»''']] <sup>[[User_talk:Bourbons3|T]] | [[special:contributions/Bourbons3|C]]</sup> 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:Parody]] ====