Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 12

< August 11	August 13 >

August 12

Template:MySpace-porn

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 deletion. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, no useful reasons for this? --Doc 21:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a category for MySpace celebrities, we have a template for MySpace accounts. Thus, this is seperating the porn stars from the actual celebrities, keeping the main cat sain. -- Zanimum 21:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Zanimum's reasoning seems reasonable to me.--Kchase T 21:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorization of the myspace links is useful with so many celebrities using myspace as their official websites. If you don't believe that specific individual artists/actors are noteworthy enough to be on Wikipedia, then those individual articles for deletion. -- Bovineone 22:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have any of these? And if myspace porn stars aren't celebrities what on earth are they doing on wikipedia? --Doc 21:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the intention of such templates is to quickly add cats and not to clutter up "what links here" for myspace, imdb, etc.--Kchase T 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last I checked we don't exactly promote the use of myspace external links - WP:EL, a style guide, specifically states "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself.". This template seems to needlessly promote the use of myspace pages for possibly non-notable porn stars. If anything, I feel myspace links are harmful to the encyclopedia 96% of the time (don't ask how I achieved that figure) with the exceptions of them being used as official sites for organizations (which could potentially mean such an organization is non notable to begin with). Cowman109^Talk 21:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that EL is currently debating this rule. If they're non-notable, is it not a template that will help you identify articles to AfD? -- Zanimum 16:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, any myspace template for EL links should be STRONGLY discouraged. Myspace and EL should only be a special case, not the norm. -- Ned Scott 09:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that EL is currently debating this rule, and general consensus seems to be in favour of known official MySpaces, as they are often more up to date than official sites. -- Zanimum 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this template is deleted, then the related Category:Pornography celebrities with Myspace accounts category (and possibly others, such as Category:Music celebrities with Myspace accounts and Template:MySpace-music would need to be deleted too). -- Bovineone 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent idea, I fully support this. -- Ned Scott 10:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete let's not encourage even more MySpace linking for the love of God - Glen 12:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"For the love of God" is not a reason, please explain why you think MySpace links are undesirable. -- Zanimum 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, augh. Why are we spamming links for the blog entries of non-notable porn actors? that's not three strikes, that's more like three outs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they're non-notable, why aren't you AfDing the porn performers? -- Zanimum 16:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, such links should be rare if ever so no need for a template which just encourages them. --pgk^(talk) 16:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The delete folks are making some good points here, but with that provision of WP:EL currently in flux, it seems at least premature to delete it now. In any case, having a template hardly encourages myspace linking when most people would just link to the page w/o the template anyway. Also, as was recently pointed out to me, not all myspace bands or people are non-notable. Whether such links are helpful is debatable, and is being debated.--Kchase T 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It should be noted that pornography is in violation of the MySpace ToS, so that MySpace might get around to deleting all the entries in these categories. So, it's not only not encyclopedic, it's ephemeral. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One, we already have {{MySpace}}. Two, Arthur Rubin points out that MySpace actively patrols for an deletes porn, so it's not like there's a distinction in what the user's going to see. Three, this is akin to a disclaimer. Wikipedia probably should have disclaimers, but right now it doesn't, and we have to enforce that policy. --M @r ē ino 22:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the template is utterly redundant with the already existing one. As it is stated, MySpace should not be treated as a primary or secondary source, unless under extreme circumstances. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud — WP:PORN BIO?} 03:56, 16 August 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.

Template:Internet Explorer 8

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 it's a joke template; I've moved it to the creator's userspace as User:Gamextheory/IE 8. —freak(talk) 15:10, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC)

Delete: IE7's final release is not even available yet.. there isn't such a thing as IE8.. --PASSIVE (Talk|E-Mail) 22:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. — G a ry Kirk | ^talk! 14:35, 13 August 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.

Template:University of Chicago

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 that at the time ofclosing, the template had already been redirected. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of Template:UChicago --Trödel 15:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Template:UChicago to this template. jareha ^(comments) 23:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per jareha. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 17:16, 13 August 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.

Template:Distressing

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 the damsel didn't get rescued :( —freak(talk) 14:44, Aug. 13, 2006 (UTC)

Translation: this sort of template is a reincarnation of the sort of "This content may offend some users!" template that gets made and remade every so often, and the consensus has been overwhelmingly not to do this sort of thing. We already have Wikipedia:General disclaimer, so we don't need this. If you'd like to change this state of affairs, bring it up on the Village Pump or Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored, and the use of this is pretty much inherently POV. Mango juice^talk 14:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's use actually supports WP:NOT. It is much the same as a spoiler warning. It allows controversial material to be posted without edit wars and without censoring. It protects inofrmation that would otherwise be deleted by people with a POV.--Tbeatty 18:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spoiler warnings are not about controversial material, morals, or dead babies. They are not the same, using that rational will get you nowhere. It "allows" nothing, because controversial material is always allowed, regardless of edit wars. -- Ned Scott 09:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The correct remedy here is to move that tiny disclaimer link at the bottom (per default) up above all articles. This template is not really censorship (I don't agree with Ned on that), but it's a clear breach of the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates guideline, which allows spoilers. --GunnarRene 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per GunnaRene. — G a ry Kirk | ^talk! 14:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no,no,no,no --Doc 14:42, 13 August 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.

Template:Indefblocked-vandalism

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 keep per bad faith nom by a sockpuppet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is unnecessary and disorganizes categories for blocked vandal accounts (i.e. Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in August 2006) - if only the template {{indefblock}} was used, it would make things flow better for this situation. --How dare you? 02:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The idea of this template is so that someone could go to the userpage in an investigation, and know why the vandal was blocked without having to go to the block log. Putting a dated category in this template should be childs play if you need it, by the way. Instead, I think that {{Indefblockeduser}} should be deleted or modified to require a reason, instead. If no reason is given, it should be made to intentionally look ugly like {{Db}} does when no reason is given for speedy deletion. Jesse Viviano 16:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and note the nominator is a sockpuppet account of a long term vandal, confirmed by checkuser and now blocked. --pgk^(talk) 16:48, 13 August 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.

Template:4 Comics

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 deletion. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is part of an elaborate hoax staged by Asadaleem12@hotmail.com and Bret John. Danny Lilithborne 01:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4 Comics. --GunnarRene 14:34, 13 August 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.

Template:Rock 'n' Roll Racing

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 deletion. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is part of an elaborate hoax staged by Asadaleem12@hotmail.com and Bret John. Danny Lilithborne 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains links to characters without a chance of having their own articles. --GunnarRene 14:31, 13 August 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.

Template:The Swordsmen

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 deletion. ЯyanG e rbil10(The people rejoice!) 02:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is part of an elaborate hoax staged by Asadaleem12@hotmail.com and Bret John. Danny Lilithborne 01:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. "Elaborate" is too flattering a term. :-) What a waste of energy! I cannot believe that this guy has not been blocked already... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (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.