Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

March 25, 2006[edit]

Template:Cvdis[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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cvdis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16#Category:Character-video game disambiguation, but should be listed here for the template itself. --William Allen Simpson 23:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete per T1. Angr (talk • contribs) 16:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Profanity[edit]

Template:Profanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template created by a single user to signal his disagreement with Wikipedia's non-censorship policies. Represents its author's POV, and clearly inappropriate. Monicasdude 13:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Town[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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created by mistake by User:Coolgreen almost a year ago. Not used anywhere and initially probably intended to replicate Template:TownBG. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 13:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Raul654 20:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Good article[edit]

Template:Good article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
A major policy change has been implemented with this template, without any prior consensus or discussion. This template is intended to be placed on the *main article space* to indicate an article is "good". There is an already existing in-use template which goes on the article talk page. The whole concept of "good articles" is not currrently accepted as policy, and yet this template attempts to put it on a par with the star for featured articles (which itself was highly contentious). there are now hundreds of articles displaying this star, as a result of some automated bot adding it without bothering to ask anyone first. current standard practice is to just put a GA tag on the *talk page* only. i suggest deleting this template for now, until GA becomes official wikipedia policy. then the issue can be further discussed. Zzzzz 09:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Please see clarification and proposal for action at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#The good article tag on main article space. Basically we revert the "gun-jumping" addition of the template to hundreds of article main pages, but we keep the template itself until a vote about the policy change takes place. this is not an attack on you, your articles, or the good articles process. it is simply about following wikipolicy where big changes to policy are concerned. wikipolicy was not followed here. Zzzzz 16:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


While investigating, out of curiosity, the unusual prevalence of "strong" votes in this debate, an organized campaigning attempt was detected. User:RJN appears to have spammed multiple user talk pages with identical messages, specifically directing all those users to vote "keep". The concerned users uncovered so far include:
User talk:Bremen, User talk:Bob rulz, User talk:HereToHelp, User talk:Joturner, User talk:Air.dance, User talk:Gflores, User talk:Postoak, User talk:Eagleamn, User talk:Jareha, User talk:Walkerma, User talk:Homestarmy, User talk:Slambo, User talk:Wiki amateur, User talk:Jleon, User talk:Katefan0, User talk:TheGrappler, User talk:Scm83x.
While a small number of targetted messages bringing attention to the vote may indeed be considered acceptable in some circumstances, specifically ordering dozens of users to vote "keep" via talk page spam is certainly not in order. Official policy in these instances is clear:

"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated, in order to attract users with likely known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate and influence consensus or discussion. It's also inappropriate to invite "all one's friends" to help argue an article. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia." Also: "internal spamming means cross-posting of messages to a large number of user talk pages, by Wikipedians, in order to promote Wikipedia matters such as elections, disputes, discussions, etc"

Please consider any votes from the listed users especially carefully when tallying, and may i advise all parties involved, on both sides, to continue this debate in a "civil" manner. Using the word "strong" has no particular influence here. Thankyou. Catherine breillat 14:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep There are now hundreds of good articles with this tag on the main space. You have defaced all these good articles by placing {{tfd}} tag on this template. You should have discussed this issue on the Good article project page instead of listing it for deletion without warnings to anyone involved in the project. The {{good article}} template places a small Good Article symbol (Plus icon) in the top right corner of an article to indicate that it is a good article on Wikipedia. —RJN 09:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you already defaced the articles by putting this non-discussed template on them in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I support the good article project and this template because it promotes the good article project and helps people identify when they are reading good articles. Also, before it was nominated for deletion, this was a very unobtrusive template. Cedars 10:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
supporting to promote something? oh dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep Agree per RJN and Cedars. There is a good ongoing discussion at the project page and we can reach a consensus there before even considering deletion of the template. Another member of the project and I have hashed rough plans for even another compromise involving the icon on that same discussion page. Air.dance 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is already a template for the talk page, which is where this info belongs. Eugene van der Pijll 10:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. First, I agree that the template should have been discussed of the GA talk page rather than just being listed on TFD. Second, I support the use of this template because I like to know if an article has been deemed 'good' or 'featured' without having to consult the talk page first.--Fallout boy 11:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
funny how the creation and mass addition of this template did not require any discussion, but the deletion does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
difference: prod was an extension to the *policy* articles for deletion. this is an extension to a non-policy which is suddenly now extended to attack main article pages. second: prod went through full policy approval at all stages, it wasnt suddenly imposed out of nowhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep I fail to see the harm in this template. The fact that good articles are not official policy (which, by the way, has been true for a long time) should not prevent this template from existing. joturner 11:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is already a talk page template. so dont need another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Delete 1) voting "keep" because the template is on too many pages is quite simply absurd. 2) "Good articles" are very different to featured articles. They are actually saying "this article still needs significant improvement", because if it didn't it would be an FA. 3) The "featured article" process is a central part of Wikipedia culture. The FA process demands a rigourous procedure of vetting. The GA procedure requires one user. This template can thus potentially mislead people into thinking the article is better than it is. 4) Including meta-information in the article itself is semantically awful. Sam Korn (smoddy) 11:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT There is also a vote on the use of this template at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Icon. Eugene van der Pijll 11:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some good points have been made, I don't really feel threatened by this template. Sarge Baldy 13:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This may be "template creep" into allowing Wikipedia-related templates in the main namespace (see m:instruction creep). What's next, a stub template just like this? I also agree with Sam Korn, especially his second 2 points. On the other hand, there is no serious harm to it, and I see no reason why no discussion (there's one here) and not being policy should be arguments.--HereToHelp 11:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I like "meta" information in as clear a position as possible. It's fairly unobtrusive. SeanMack 12:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conmment On reflection I'd like to second the points made by Vir - Neutral (revert to Strong Keep if GA can be approved soon.). I can see that it is not acceptable to use the template without discussion and acceptance by the community. I am surprised by the nastiness of some if the delete voters though. This is a new project and one which I think will be invaluable when properly positioned in a larger scheme. What I mean by that is: If peer review, article assesment, FA, GA, 1.0 and other separate drives can be brought together a little bit, we should see a better all round process for bringing articles from a basic beginning, through to standardised formatting and quality writing, review and verification. The GA process needs more editors and can easily be used to ensure articles are at a basic level of acceptability before domain experts need to get involved checking the content. It would be a shame if this template issue put people against the GA process instead of helping to shape it into a useful vetting process that will enhance the encyclopaedia, given time. SeanMack 09:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there is already a talk page template. dont need another one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
  • Keep --Terence Ong 13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - put it on talk page, don't need more clutter at top to uglify good articles. Vsmith 13:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There's no harm at all, and lets people know instantly that the article they are reading is a good article. Chris1219 13:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Zzzzz, please refrain from commenting on every vote that goes against yours. It appears as though you have presented your argument sufficiently; no need to rub it in our faces. joturner 14:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amir85 14:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. - Eagletalk 14:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Sam Korn. The featured article process and the good article processes are quite different; one is an integral, accepted part of Wikipeida, while the other is a less formal and relatively new process that has yet to be embraced by the entire Wikipedia community. "Good articles" are not part of the official Wikipedia featured content process, nor do they pass a stringent process like featured article candidates do. In addition, it should be noted that this proposal is still tagged as a proposed policy; until it becomes widely accepted, it is premature to begin the tagging of such articles. Also, why do we need to know that an article is a "good article"? Anyone can remove it without discussion, unlike the featured article removal process. Finally, the argument that the template should be kept because it's being used on many pages, quite frankly, is ridiculous, as Sam Korn says. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer, this is process wonky. I agree with Sam Korn and Flcelloguy, et al... I'm not sure I like how something got into articlespace without lots of discussion outside its own area. I don't recall seeing much if anything about it in the policy announcement/notice pages I tend to watch like the pump. Putting something new on articlespace is a big move. Whatever bot owner's bot did it should now be asked to undo it, and then this template should be Deleted pending a more widespread process of discussion and consensus. Personally I don't think marking an article good is a good idea anyway. ++Lar: t/c 14:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Flcelloguy. the wub "?!" 15:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pointless addition to the featured article process. Arniep 15:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Navel-gazing is bad. Icons are horrible. Navel-gazing icons make me lose faith in humanity. And this is another example of a small group of people developing nasty templates and spreading them where they're not wanted. HenryFlower 15:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per others. (why is this vote split between here and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Icon?). As per other page, i'm really wondering about the reasoning of the small number of individuals who unilaterally implemented this. I have a strong suspicion they wanted a "pat on the back" for their starwars and videogame fancruft articles, which they couldnt get from WP:FAC, so decided to create their own, with lower standards. WP:GA is fine as a talkpage tool, but to give an unwitting wikipedia reader the impression that any random article, marked as "good" on the article page by 2 collaborating starwars-loving schoolboys, has been given the wikipedia stamp of approval is misleading, dishonest and hurts wikipedia's reputation. Niz 14:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or ban its use in the article space. First-graders might need a sticker on their paper to complement their good work, but I was under the impression that most Wikipedians are a bit more mature. More to the point, readers are not interested that one guys randomly decided the article was "good." The implementation of the template is unacceptable, and unless consensus for it can be demonstrated, it should be removed from the main article space. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it is useful. --Fdp 16:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, per part of policy or guideline. →AzaToth 16:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From pure curiosity, which policy, which guideline? Policies and guidelines need consensus, and there's precious little of that here. Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops, I ment as a proposed policy or guideline, as I was unders the impression that it was the same from a tfd point of view. →AzaToth 00:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong DELETE. The "Good article" project is fine as a talk page tool, but it is a bad idea to publicly flaunt an article as "Good" to readers when the "Good article" label is so loosely and arbitrarily appointed. Coffee 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Sarge Baldy. jareha (comments) 17:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Neutral (revert to Strong Keep if GA can be approved soon.) For the Wikipedia 1.0 (and GA) project, I have reviewed hundreds and hundreds, actually thousands, of article pages. It is helpful to have the FA tag on the main page and would be even more helpful to have a GA tag there as well, for several reasons. It would be helpful in general to readers and save time for reviewers. While newer than FA, the Good Article process could become a key part and even foundational part of Wikipedia review and evaluation processes. The GA review has been very helpful to the Core topics subproject of the Wikipedia Version 1.0 project. The GA tags on the talk page are helpful in reviewing article status. A GA tag on the main page would be even more helpful in reviewing article status. Instead of going backwards, lets go forwards and vote now to approve the GA process (which is very much needed) and hence bypass the basis for this debate. If that is not possible, process wise, then I do not oppose deletion. Vir 17:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. --Off! 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as per Sam Korn. It's also not a good idea to keep meta-data in the article-space, and there is not much value added to the article by a GA tag; it just shows that one or two chaps think this article is good (not great). An FA tag at least shows that the community (or at least some people who like hanging out on FAC) agrees the article is great. I'm not convinced by the proposition that "GA could become a key part of evaluation processes". Even if it does, it's not a good reason to flaunt this less-than-great status in the article-space. In the first place, it's not crucial to either casual readers or reviewers hunting down GAs (who have a much easier way to find them). Johnleemk | Talk 17:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Articles should not be defaced with what essentially amount to advertisements of a proposed policy, no matter how small the icon is. The Good Article system exists to serve the interests of the encyclopedia, not vice versa. (It also doesn't help that a large portion of "Good Articles" actually aren't that good.) -Silence 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Sam Korn and others and my comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Pagrashtak 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sam Korn.-gadfium 18:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete again, per Sam Korn's comments--Looper5920 19:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If i understand correctly, this template was added to hundreds of articles without prior discussion. As there is already a perfectly fine template called "GA" for the Talk page, which all the affected articles already have, this one is (a) redundant and unnecessary, and (b) does not follow the usual "templates should be on talk pages" conventions. Catherine breillat 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Featured articles have them both on the talk page and the main page. It does not "uglify" them, either. Good articles are scrutinized more and more and that should eliminate so-called bad articles with GA icons. It's a good indicator of what's above average in an article and I see no harm in it. Also, per User:Vir above. Gflores Talk 19:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. -- 1() 20:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I supported a large-scale exception to allow meta information in the main namespace for featured articles. Good articles, however, have often not been reviewed, officially or not. Why, then, should we tell readers that articles are "good," when it is the subjective decision of one individual of an article being decent, rather than the consensus of the community that the article exemplifies the Wikipedia project? — Rebelguys2 talk 21:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I don't have the energy to read this whole discussion, but GA is too weak, and it supports too many bad articles, to get a reader-facing badge of honor. More fundamentally, GA does not have enough of a process for this (like FA does), and that's a discussion for another day. Finally, a change like including this template must not begin without a broad consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles and advertised everywhere. Melchoir 21:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNBELIEVABLY STRONG KEEP. It helps out the project by letting people know "hey, this page is pretty good, so it may be worth a read". A lot of these pages are actually better reads than FA's, because they don't have all those ridiculous "NPOV" statements (added to ward off FAC trolls) and footnotes clogging up the whole page and they actually resemble a real, interesting article. Definitely worth keeping. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unbelievable indeed! Now why would an encyclopedia need to tell its reader that the article s/he just consulted is indeed worth a read? That should be the standard case, shouldn't it? And if for some reason it isn't (i.e. if there are many articles that are 'worse' than our 'good articles'), shouldn't we be doing something about that instead of patting ourselves on the back by means of a pointless self-reference? — mark ✎ 12:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There's already one for featured article. I do, however, understand most of the arguments made against it. I do think we should make it larger, because both times it was added to one of the articles I looked at (I deleted it the first time because I thought it didn't do anything) I didn't see anything until I asked the guy what it did and he pointed it out. This should be kept, as long as people keep a close eye on good articles and make sure that they really are good, because it can be misleading (I think people have become a bit too lax on featured articles already, and some of the good articles really aren't good, either). bob rulz 00:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If other Wikipedia editions can use it, why shouldn't we? It's nifty. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless moved to, and kept on, the talk page only. -Sean Curtin 01:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every "good article" in existence already has a huge, pointless box at the top of its Talk page specifying exactly that; are you endorsing that two identical boxes be put on the talk page? Furthermore, every article that's ever been a "good article", according to a single user's opinion, even if it's now FAd and that's irrelevant, has a pointless box on its page. Wikipedia:Good Articles is not remotely helpful to the encyclopedia, but what it is remarkably good at doing is self-promoting itself, since its users are constantly trying to find more and more and more ways to advertise WP:GA on every aspect of Wikipedia articles, even though WP:GA is a highly subjective, speculative, still-under-construction new system that a lot of users oppose. This is because WP:GA, very much like WP:UBX (but vastly more intrusive, since it infests articles and their talk pages rather than userpages), is a highly successful self-promoting Wiki-meme: the more articles are promoted to "good article" status, the more billboard advertisements for WP:GA get posted to those articles, and the more readers see them and want to support their own articles by marking them as "good articles", so they add all their favorites and spread the billboard-advertising further. This is how WP:GA has flourished despite being an ill-conceived, disorganized, inconsistent, time-wasting retarded younger brother of WP:FA—by propagating itself through the self-congratulatory egos of editors. A vicious cycle indeed. And now it's escaped the confines of talk pages, where at least it only consumed lots of useless space for editors, to try to take over articles as well, essentially becoming editor-sponsored vandalism of articles. Really, it's a fascinating process; someone should write a sociology paper on how something so useless to the Wikipedia project has so effectively infected Wikipedia's articles without even the shadow of any consensus support. -Silence 01:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, while I have said (I believe we discussed this before) that I think GA is rather inane and pointless ATM, I think it's proven beneficial to the 1.0 project. I do agree, however, that most people are getting into GA for the glamour of it than for improving Wikipedia, but if the end result is the same, what's the fuss? (I do think that the project could still be just as useful if nothing on article or talk pages indicated that the page in question is a GA.) Johnleemk | Talk 13:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I think it's easy to identify good articles this way and it helps us know which articles are close to FA. Bremen 02:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's nice to have a little support symbol just like the star that {{good article}} puts on featured articles. -- King of Hearts talk 04:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, Postoak 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Strong keep" is my vote, not based on the recommendation or request from another user. Thanks Postoak 00:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. Per others supporting Keep. — Wackymacs 08:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Sam Korn and Flcelloguy. The {{featured article}} template was controvesial enough, and there a debate for a week or two before it was added, in which there were very few disentients (notably Raul654). This template has had no debate, and I doubt it would have anything like as much support as {{featured article}}. All of our article should be "good" articles - all it says is that someone liked the article, and no-one has removed it yet. At the very least, the template should be removed from article space until there is consensus for it to be added. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Francis Schonken 15:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Firstly, I don't see much reason why my vote absolutly has to be declared suspicious just because someone notified me of the vote and thought they would encourage me to vote for keep, and secondly, I don't really know if the dot thing needs to be used because its kind of not in the policy as far as I know, but the GA system isn't even a set-in-stone policy yet, I think we should just keep the dot thing around for awhile just in case we decide to use it in the future. It's not that huge a deal to me though, I mean, I suppose if we want it again we can just recreate it pretty quick, but it seems like less trouble to just leave it there. Homestarmy 15:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sam Korn and re-create if it seems appropriate to do so if GA becomes Wikipedia policy. BigBlueFish 16:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most extreme keep possible. It is quite selfish to try to delete this template just because there was no consensus on having it. Sometimes things just happen, and that's the way it works. Not everything has to be done in a formal process! → J@red talk+ ubx  21:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm suggesting deleting it because it's a bad idea, not because it doesn't have consensus. The latter is also true, but that isn't the reason. Goodness knows I'm one of the last people to delete something because it isn't demanded in "policy". Sam Korn (smoddy) 21:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it isn't a bad idea to inform readers of the quality of the article they are reading, the problem is that there is no set standard for a "good article". This template enables people to say an article is good, when it might be crap. For a newcomer to Wikipedia, it gives the wrong impression of Wikipedia's standards. And where's the line dividing a good article from a featured article? Hey, every article on Wikipedia's a good one :-). Osbus 21:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: not used, not needed. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 21:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please reconsider your vote...the template appears not used becuase some possibly selfish users deleted the template from all pages without the consent of others. → J@red talk+ ubx  21:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The use of "possibly" does not stop this comment from being a borderline personal attack or, at the very least, a grave failure to assume good faith on the part of other users. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me quote the deletion proposal to further explain my position: the whole concept of "good articles" is not currrently accepted as policy, and yet this template attempts to put it on a par with the star for featured articles ... current standard practice is to just put a GA tag on the *talk page* only. i suggest deleting this template for now, until GA becomes official wikipedia policy. then the issue can be further discussed. The existence of a template on the main namespace just to tell people they are reading a "good article" (which can mean anything) isn't acceptable. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so based on that logic, let's delete the FA stars. Why would anyone care if they're reading a featured article. It is the same reason, right? So why should one stay and one go?! → J@red talk+ ubx  22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my points above for why this is fundamentally different. Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The FA process demands a rigourous procedure of vetting. The GA procedure requires one user. Featured Articles have actually been deemed "the best" by consensus. With "good articles", that's not the case. If I wanted to, I could declare a page like Chiyu Banking Corporation a "good article". Saying on the article page that "this page is a good article!" doesn't actually mean anything. -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I disagree with your points because I think that even if the article isn't as good as someone else may think it is, people will see the green plus sign and automatically realize that it is a good article, and say "Hmm, It'd be nice if I could do a little editing here to help this article become an FA!". Do you see where I'm coming from? → J@red talk+ ubx  22:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds good in theory, but I doubt that would happen: according to WP:GA, About 0.1% of Wikipedia articles are featured articles ... However, there are also many articles containing excellent content but which are unlikely to become featured in their current state; so long as they meet certain quality standards, they may be listed as good articles. Sounds like "let's pat ourselves on the back" instead. If this whole "good articles" project is going to exist, it should stay on the talk pages until it reaches consensus for adoption and becomes policy.-- getcrunkjuicecontribs 22:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep When this template was first created we agreed to keep it until GA became an official policy an then discuss if we should use it (This is the discussion). It seems as though people here just want to get rid of this template just because some person was being bold by putting this template on the article pages without discussing it with anyone. Tarret 23:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the "good article" concept is a good one, but to display metadata on the article page in this manner requires far more discussion and consideration. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whilst the good article concept provides a basic resource to editors looking for above average articles, they are ultimately compiled on a subjective basis and without review. This template clearly oversteps these limitations.--cj | talk 07:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I appreciate the motivation behind creating the template, but it's not really necessary. We have a tag to put on the talk page, and while the FA star is quite useful to immediately identify articles which have been thoroughly reviewed and judged to be the very best of Wikipedia, a GA icon doesn't really assist the reader because it's not immediately obvious what it means. We could certainly have done with more discussion before starting to use the template.
On a separate note I wish the small minority of people who obviously don't like the whole GA process would actually bite the bullet and nominate it for deletion rather than just continually taking every opportunity to ridicule it and those who take part in it - it's far from helpful or productive. Worldtraveller 09:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it's a self-reference and a very narcissistic one at that. Question Can anyone voting 'strong keep' explain why an encyclopedia would want to tell its readers that the article they are reading currently "may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic". Isn't this what the would hope the reader to expect? Note that I don't consider WP:GA without merit in itself, but I do think that it's rather dumb to put notices like this in the main namespace. — mark ✎ 09:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the talk-page reference is sufficient - I fail to see a benefit to the reader in seeing the icon on the article page. GA status is far from confirmation that this is part of the encyclopedia's finest work, just that somebody felt confident enough to nominate it, somebody else thought it passed some criteria and nobody else has decided to remove it yet. It's misleading to compare GA to FA - GA has a "weaker" nominations system but a far "tougher" removal system. Broadly, an FA was appointed by "positive consensus" whereas GA status tends to exist through a combination of a lower hurdle to attain the status followed by a lack of action to retract it (the fact that it is easy to delist an article makes that a higher hurdle than it sounds, and it is here that a kind of "negative consensus" comes in). However, I don't think that this is the type of consensus that metadata on article space should have (though it is exactly the type of consensus that most text in an article enjoys! I think metadata is acceptable but should face a higher hurdle than article data). Further, I don't believe that the template should be used until or unless there is strong consensus in its favour, and even if I changed my mind about the metadata element of my objection, I can't see a consensus to include emerging in the future. As a final note, I think that the use of the template and the "campaign" to keep it has been sloppily handled, but urge skeptical Wikipedians to assume good faith. The fact that people have been accidentally using the template is probably a good reason to expunge it, it can always be recreated if there is consensus to use it again in the future. TheGrappler 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The featured articles system is enough (if not too much). Athenaeum 06:25, 1 April 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:Geodis[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 Keep -- Circeus 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geodis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After discussion in several places, including the recent Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16, the category is highly desired, but may overlap with other subcategories such as human names. Replace with {disambig} followed by Category:Lists of ambiguous place names that conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. --William Allen Simpson 09:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: like {{Hndis}} below, this could transclude {{disambig}} plus the second category (as a shortcut to the dual category). Then, when another category is added, it would follow the template as usual. --William Allen Simpson 14:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this template will be more useful than {{disambig}} as one can diffrentiate a normal disambiguation page with a geography dab page. --Terence Ong 15:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - disambig is too full to keep track of specialized subsets. BD2412 T 23:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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:Hndis[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 Keep -- Circeus

Template:Hndis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

After discussion in several places, including the recent Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 16, the category is highly desired, but may overlap with other subcategories such as place names.

Options:

  1. Replace with {disambig} followed by Category:Lists of ambiguous human names that conforms to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for lists of items. --William Allen Simpson 09:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Another option might be to keep the template, but use exactly the wording in {{disambig}}, so that when there are placenames on the same page, then the additional categories can be easily added without disturbing the look and feel. --William Allen Simpson 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Changing Hndis to usually be subst, with an output as in #1. (I've been finding rather a lot of Subst'd Hndis in the category and fixing them). That would make it easy to use, but the final output would always be {{disambig}}, so the rampant disambiguators that found templates confusing might be happier. We'd know which template was on the page (without edit) as it would always be the same. And there wouldn't be text display conflict where there are both human names and place names (of which I'm finding quite a few). Heck, there are pages with both templates on them! --William Allen Simpson 04:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a much more convenient to add
  • {{hndis|Arnold, Benedict}}
instead of
  • {{disambig}} and [[:Category:Lists of ambiguous human names|Arnold, Benedict]]
Isn't this why we had templates in the first place? -- User:Docu
I certainly agree! Deletion of this template was just one of the things "decided" at a straw poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories, where you and I lost (3:8) "Should human name templates be used?".
But now vox populi has decided we want subcategories after all. So, I was trying to move toward a compromise solution (keep the category but toss the template), a strictly literal interpretation of the question.
--William Allen Simpson 13:03, 25 March 2006
  • Delete or Modifed Keep I can go with William's suggestion to keep the category and toss the template, or the suggestion to change the wording in hndis to match disambig, but I don't like keeping hndis with the old wording. It looks like Docu has jumped the gun and "undeprecated" the hndis template by changing the instructions in Category:Human name disambiguation. Until and unless some vote or consensus breathes new life into hndis AND we change the MoS, let's not go against the flow. Chris the speller 03:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the template, and the edit summaries there explain what Docu was doing, but the explanatory summaries were not on the category's edit history. Not trying to ruffle any feathers, it's just hard to keep up when the instructions change hourly. Chris the speller 04:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even my post above got updated! .. Anyways, I think it's preferable to have a somewhat different wording otherwise one needs to hit edit to find out which template is on a page. -- User:Docu.
  • Comment -- DLJessup (talk · contribs) started "deprecating" this template a couple of days ago. Very annoying not to follow the process. But then started "undeprecating" it yesterday. --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is essentially moot, anyway, since MoS:DP calls for {{disambig}}, and specifies no other template. My objection (above) was to the category instructions, which were changed to encourage the use of {{hndis}}, which has never been approved by any guidelines, as far as I know. Please don't be hard on an editor who has been jerked around and had his work disrupted by a flurry of conflicting instructions, and who has remained very cooperative in spite of this.
  • Comment -- I've also discovered that rather a lot of the current uses aren't correct. To sort by Surname, the "name=" parameter is needed. The example given above by Docu doesn't work correctly. Folks with the surname directly on the category itself (without using the template) seem to get it right most often. --William Allen Simpson 05:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. To clarify, the example for the template should include the "name=" parameter, but the category should not:
  • {{hndis|name=Arnold, Benedict}}
  • [[Category:Lists of ambiguous human names|Arnold, Benedict]]
and, for those unfamiliar with this person, "Arnold", although a common given name, is his surname. Chris the speller 17:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - disambig is too full to keep track of specialized subsets. BD2412 T 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
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:L'Isle[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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:L'Isle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unused, and rather strange and pointless-looking. Alai 06:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (unused). To puzzle you even more, it was used on L'Isle. -- User:Docu
  • Delete unused and not very useful with only 2 links in it. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. jareha (comments) 17:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems a bit....pointless :/. Homestarmy 15:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Template:Infobox shopping mall x[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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox shopping mall x (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Content transferred to Template:Infobox shopping mall as extension and therefore no need anymore CeeGee 15:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25&oldid=1082482556"