Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:35, 23 May 2006

< May 19	May 21 >

May 20, 2006

Template:OntarioSH

Relisted today as there was no discussion on May 12. No vote from me. Angr (t • c) 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However, shrink down the Secondary Highway shield up top, or allow me to make a smaller one. It has potential as a template. Let's give it a chance. If anything, consider even using the template in the Talk Page. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - rather big and not very useful. --SPUI (T - C) 13:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and shrink size. -- Kukini 00:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SPUI; this would be more effectively presented in list form. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear box

Template:Headgear box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created to replace template Headgear which was deleted. However in the discussion almost all of the participants who voted to deleted, voted to deleted this template as well see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Template:Headgear for the full discussion. Jon513 20:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I lean towards keep, as I have no problem with a bottom box. My problem is with a placement as a top-of-page box. Let's hang onto this one and implement it more fully. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a particularly useful infobox, and precedent was against it. If this survives the TfD, I'd suggest a rename to something along the lines of "apparel" or "clothing" rather than head gear, which conjures up images of orthodonics. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:CSD#T1 by Xoloz. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Shutup

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.

Template:Anti-war topics

Keep. Not any longer than Template:Anarchism and Template:Fascism or Template:AfricanAmerican. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's too long, it can be trimmed, sections can be cut, etc. If there's nothing wrong in principle with the template, there's no reason to delete it. Kalkin 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cut down or split up, not deleted. Also, I oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 04:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although I agree with what you are saying with regard to userboxes, this is not a userbox, it's a normal template. The Ungovernable Force 05:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The length of the template only serves to highlight the notability of the topic, in my view. If it is deemed "too long" for the articles it is included on, then perhaps the template should be adjusted, but certainly not deleted. —GrantNeufeld 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Similarly to the above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have used this template many times when navigating Anti-war topics; I've found it very useful. I think the size issue can be solved by moving elements into another more specific template. - Solar 10:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep but Anti-War topics should be reworded. Netscott 11:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been spamming user pages to gather votes to influence the outcome here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The text of the message is: "Template:Anti-war topics is up for deletion. Please weigh in on the discussion. Thanks!". Thryduulf 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a problem with this. The more people who are aware that are aware of the process of template deletion and their say in it, the better. Sophy's Duckling 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote-stack spamming is bad. Netscott 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote spamming has been ruled out by the arbcom irrespective of message. Schuminweb broke the rules. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- And in typical hot-headed style, Jtdirl blocked me without warning. WP:CIVIL. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Soliciting votes. --bainer (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a very useful navigation template, and is not much longer than Template:Christianity or Template:Islam for example. If it does need to be split, then I suggest that the anti-war organisations section would make a useful template on its own, leaving a link to List of anti-war organisations on the main template and possibly a very few (about 3 at most) of the most notable (perhaps Not in Our Name, Stop the War Coalition and Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament). I will suggest this at the template talk as well. Thryduulf 12:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think that's extremely helpful. Sophy's Duckling 16:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have templates a lot longer than this. Perhaps it should be redone, but the template is useful. Falphin 17:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--it's a useful template. I don't see the harm. --Lukobe 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above comments. --Sanguinus 20:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has proven useful to me. If Fear EIREANNs opinion "too long" is enough for deleting templates, it would imply the deletion of many templates that are also long, like the Template:Irish Free State for example. Also, the length of the template is typically a thing discussed on the template's discussion page. Why refuse to give your opinion or advise on the discussion page? Why opting for deletion right away? -- ActiveSelective 22:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Kukini 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. // ^The True _Sora 02:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --Strothra 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As mentioned by a few others, this template is no longer than any others. Even if it is, just trim it down, don't delete it. If you want to make a large category as well, do that too, but why delete this? I have found it useful. The Ungovernable Force 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per comments above. Discuss length on talk page.--JK the unwise 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Netscott. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nirvana2013 09:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GreenLantern

Template:GreenLantern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is highly inaccurate and useless insomuch as there are various characters known as "Green Lantern", and hence each individual character has his/her own page and corresponding template (in most cases). As each Lantern has his/her own character specific allies/adversaries/notable stories, this template does not accomplish the purpose it seems to have been designed for initially. NetK 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as long as this template isn't being used anywhere that a better template isn't available.--Ssbohio 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this template is a "catch all" listing the allies, colleagues, adversaries and such for one or two Green Lanterns (which already have their own templates) and which fail to apply to the other Green Lanterns listed. NetK 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Christian

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was controversially amended by several editors in an edit war over which all parties have acknowledged regret. DRV discussion resulted in a consensus to undelete and relist this template. This a procedural nomination, so I abstain. I urge all commenters to treat this matter with respect. Xoloz 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Reword to avoid T2. Keep - If edit war is used as a rational to delete a(n) template/article, then many pages on Wikipedia has to be deleted as well? -Hunter 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and rewrite. The edit war merits an RfC at the least (and perhaps even an RfAr, on Cyde in particular). But the template itself is currently violating T2. However, since T2 is a new proposal, we should avoid deleting too many templates with it and generating controversy and division. So instead, circumvent the problem by both preserving the template and adhering to CSD T1/T2: move this template to {{user christianity}}, change the text to "This user is interested in Christianity.", and for anyone who wants the original, simply subst the raw code to their userpage. The exact same course has been taken for every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, mainly as a preventative measure to avoid a big, ugly war over implementing T2, when we should be worrying about editing the encyclopedia, not squabbling over userboxes. -Silence 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though this was not the reason this template was nominated for deletion (Sorry, I believe in due process). If this is used as the reason to nominate this template for deletion, I probably would support your view and vote the same as you. Hunter 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move and re-write as per Silence, or speedy delete as CSD t2. --Doc ^ask? 19:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. There is no harm in allowing Christians to identify themselves as such. Bucketsofg✐ 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing nobody's suggesting they aren't allowed to do that, then. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Buckets Homestarmy 20:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a user is allowed to write "I am Christian..." on his user page why can he put it in a box? Jon513 21:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He can. People object to users putting the text in a template, not to putting the text in a box. Personally, I think both objections are rather silly, but there's clearly significant support for the idea that there shouldn't be belief-expressing templates, else T2 wouldn't have lasted this long (though there seem to be more people who oppose than support its usage). -Silence 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super-strong keep. Enough of this stupid userbox erasing. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Jon513. Stifle (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. This is ridiculous. There is no legitimate reason that I can find for deleting any userbox template. User pages aren't going to be neutral. Users should be allowed to identify themselves with any group they choose. Alan 03:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously) I agree with the user, Akcarver. It is simply ridculous and offensive to Christians who love to tell someone that they are. Weirdy 07:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as is. Does nothing to harm the encyclopedia and there are resources to spare at this time. Gateman1997 08:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep That "edit war" was ridiculous. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a pretty obvious T1 speedy, so I don't see any point in discussion on a TfD. --Tony Sidaway 15:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see proof that this userbox has led to any division among users, besides the edit wars and the speedy deletion. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it were obviously so, Mr. Sidaway, I would not have relisted it. While your observation is welcome, it is inaccurate. As for the good served by this discussion -- a calm discussion helps ease tensions, and mollifies the anger of those rightly upset with the events surrounding the previous improper speedying of this template. As I said, consensus at DRV did determine the previous speedy was improper. Xoloz 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is nothing offensive whatsoever about the words "This user is a Christian." Sophy's Duckling 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sophy's Duckling Brian | (Talk) 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious speedy keep. Think about how to show convincingly that this template violates "Don't be a dick". — Timwi 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm getting dragged into this dumb userbox war. For those of you who think a vote for keep==subt and delete... no. The content is not the purpose of the userbox. The ability to find other users of a certain POV to help balance out articles is the purpose of a userboxe. If the purpose was to say "I am a chirstian" on your user page, then people could just type "I am a chirstian" on their user page. --Rayc 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: maybe you weren't around for the Great Userbox War, but your keep rationale is the exact reason that it got started. People use this kind of template in deletion debates to "rally the troops." —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 05:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — speedy if possible. Nowhere near T1/T2 in any acceptable formulation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not divisive. —MiraLuka 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per many keeps above. ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg E/L/T 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep (not "subsist and deleate")... it would be helpful to know who is a Christian, esspecally if editing articles relating to Christanity. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: First off, I'm not a christian and am actually quite opposed to the religion (and pretty much all others) but I do not see any harm in allowing someone to express their affiliation as a christian. If the problem is that it's a template, than just speedy delete every template that expresses an opinion and get it over with, instead of slowly doing this one by one. The Ungovernable Force 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Why delete something that simply states what you are? Some people aren't afraid of showing what they are and have no issue with others knowing. Some people may just put it there for "status" but that's highly unlikely in this case. Clearly doesn't violate any of the T's... --Ivorydust 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You cannot be offended by this. Thats just stupid. And it simply states that the person is a christian. It give people an insight into who they are, so they can understand their edits more without wrongfully judging them. If people wanted the Userbox war to end, they would stop wrongfuly nominating countless numbers of userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest keep possible - is this political correctness gone mad once more? I'm not Christian but many of my friends are, and so are millions of other people in the world. This is insanity. Surely if you delete this, you have to delete all the religion ones. Michaelritchie200 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unless a decision is made to delete all templates expressing beliefs, be they religious, political, food preference, favorite sports teams, etc. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am a Christian and I find it pathetic that you're offended by this. This just tells people that the user is a Christian. I disagree with Atheism but you don't see me proposing deletion on the Atheism templates. --Tuspm 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not offended by this template; I just don't think it's an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. A This user is interested in Christianity template would be quite encyclopedic and would avoid giving the impression that we edit as advocates here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- if this gets template gets kept, I'll recreate "User satanist" (which is currently protected against creation). If we allow one religion, we should allow them all. :-) bogdan 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that just about everyone who voted "keep" above would agree with you: fairness is the most important thing. So rather than exacerbating an error by asking it to recur elsewhere, why not fix the original error? Nominate {{user satanist}} for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. It should at the least be undeleted, moved and rewritten to say "This user is interested in Satanism.", as this one should; deletion is completely unnecessary. -Silence 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to talk about fairness then why not delete the template on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians? If there are satanists on wikipedia feel free to go to undelete. Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, why can we have geographical but not religious categorization. There is already an entire [[1]] on this.Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not have 2 templates, one that says, "This user is interested in Christianity" and the other "This is user is a Christian" It is NOT our place on wikipedia to decide who and who is not a Christian. So, both are completely NPOV. Falphin 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Napoleon

Keep was closed just a few hours ago! I don't usually opine like that, but at least a couple of days... Yet another lame sig I came up with ^{T | @ | C} 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as was decided in the TfD discussion that ended earlier today. Bucketsofg✐ 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Following the Consensus, wow it seems so long ago that I created this userbox... I'm glad to see many people like it, but I also jumped off the userbox bandwagon a few months ago... I would almost prefer to see it deleted so that users would stop copying each others user boxes and come up with some clever ones on their own like i did back when I enjoyed having userboxes on my user page. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Serious speedy delete Croat Canuck, just becuase you created the template doesn't mean you own it, it's not my rule, it's not your schools rule, it's the law, it's an angry face.Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.com.au 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that comment count as a double vote? --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per all above. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 11:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all the above again. Sophy's Duckling 16:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —MiraLuka 02:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- we can't just repropose templates that were just up for TfD. It defeats the purpose of TfD alltogether. // ^The True _Sora 02:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merely because it just went through tfd! ~LinuxeristFile:Tux-linux logo.svg E/L/T 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep (in template form) per Linuxerist, TheTrueSora, Bucketsofg, et al... Mike McGregor (Can) 04:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-Napoleon awareness among Wikipedians is an important thing to me. EASports 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Keep means keep. If a userbox is kept on TfD, you're not supposed ot just re-nominate it - • The Giant Puffin • 13:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Satanism-footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redirect to Template:Satanism. Currently has no pages using it. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /01:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No harm, no foul. A redirect isn't consuming too many electrons. --Ssbohio 02:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no need. - Tutmosis 12:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused template redirect. —GrantNeufeld 04:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused. Too big also. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 10:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Usefull.Hezzy 18:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not a vote for deletion of Template:Satanism, just the unused redirect to that template (the redirect is called Template:Satanism-footer). If the redirect were actually useful, it would be being used. Since it's not used anywhere, I don't see how it might be considered useful. —GrantNeufeld 19:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment:What harm does the redirect do? I'm not asking this to argue, I honestly don't know and would like to know how deleting this would help anything. The Ungovernable Force 05:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I first came across the template during an instance of vandalism on it. I forgot about it for some time, until I randomly stumbled across it again. It's an unused redirected template that has been previously vandalised? I see no reason to keep it. If anyone wants to use it, why not just {{satanism}} instead? I could see keeping it if there were many instances of it already in place, but as there's not, why keep an extra template around that is serving no purpose? ^demon^{[yell at me]} /19:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 ::If you're going to talk about fairness then why not delete the template on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians? If there are satanists on wikipedia feel free to go to undelete.  [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Strong Keep''', why can we have geographical but not religious categorization. There is already an entire [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_religion|Category]] on this.[[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
+**Why not have 2 templates, one that says, "This user is interested in Christianity" and the other "This is user is a Christian" It is '''NOT''' our place on wikipedia to decide who and who is not a Christian. So, both are completely NPOV. [[User:Falphin|Falphin]] 13:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 ==== [[Template:User No Napoleon]] ====