Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 April 4

< April 3	April 5 >

April 4, 2006

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 Circeus 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Quetta-infobox

Template:Quetta-infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redundant with Template:Pakistani Cities as far as I can tell... only real difference is that the generic template has a slight color difference and a field for websites.gren グレン 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - About a month ago, I found several Pakistani cities each had single-use templates which mimicked each other's contents. Most of them were replaced by the generic template but for some strange reason I must have overlooked this one. Anyway it's redundant now as I have put the generic one into the article, so delete please. Green Giant 00:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Andy123(talk) 16:51, 6 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.

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 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:British legislation lists

A large template that has too many links and that I don't know what to do with after splitting one of the lists it links to (which was Wikipedia's largest article prior to my split) into 4 separate articles. Georgia guy 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... my rationale is that it is on many lists that don't have pictures or anything else that this box is conflicting with. Therefore it is better than nothing. If there were a competing idea that was better I'd delete this one... but, there doesn't seem to be. gren グレン 22:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just split the divisions of this template separated by lines into separate templates and put them on the appropriate articles. Georgia guy 00:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too many links and that you don't know what to do with is not in and of itself a reason for deletion. The template is meant as a navigational aid for allowing people to find British legislation. The lists that it links to are far from complete, but the reason there are so many links is that the lists they go to are, or will be when complete, far too big to be on one single page. For example, a list of Statutory Instruments for a year could have anything from 2000-3000 items in it. Splitting up such a list, as you have done to the 1996 version, won't really help matters since to navigate around it properly would require even more links in the template. How else do you propose people easily get round the lists? David Newton 07:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment to Grenavitar's vote above. Georgia guy 13:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the template, but I don't dismiss Georgia guy's concerns as it is growing ever larger! Probably what is required is a new template with the full details of Statutory Instruments and brief details of Acts of Parliament, and this one should link to the main list of Statutory Instruments. Hope that makes sense Kurando | ^_^ 12:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at some of the links and they look like lists of boring orders, etc etc etc...this appears to be totally unencyclopedic. Doesn't this belong on WIkibooks? - Hbdragon88 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all articles are about exciting Dr Mario video games you know. Kurando | ^_^ 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Geez, it's not about "boring," it's about the fact that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I think most of the "Orders" entries falls under "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." - Hbdragon88 21:10, 12 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.

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 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User separation

Strong Keep. This is not even slightly anti-religion. In fact, it's pro-religion, as it promotes religious freedom. -- Bilbo1507 17:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not divisive. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not divisive. User information (such as userboxes) can be used to display a user's opinion, unlike articles which rely on NPOV. Over 250 people use this, as well. — Mike Tigas 20:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also see the template User opposes MLKjr which Copus-corlione created. —Mike Tigas 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not divisive, not anti-religious. --Zegoma beach 20:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There actually was an antireligious one that I liked much better, but it was deleted so I switched to this one. Not divisive as far as I'm concerned. -- eo 20:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Why are we even considering deleting this one? C'mon...--Manwe 21:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Anti-religious? Give me a break. Most democratic nations have embraced or even constitutionalized the seperation of church and state, and the majority of their citizens evidently support it, despite the fact that most are religious. The seperation of church and state enhances religious freedom, if anything, by preventing legal discrimination based on religion. It's odd that out of all the userboxes on Wikipedia, this one has been termed "divisive". WGee 22:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of most democratic nations and the benefits of the concept do not have bearing on whether a belief is divisive. --Constantine Evans 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, didn't think of it in that way. But still delete =) --Mboverload 23:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. No reckless censorship on wikipedia, please.E.Cogoy 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Kukini 00:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you would consider deleting every single userbox that references a religion or lack thereof (e.g. everything in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion), otherwise Keep. -Loren 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a reference to religion that is the problem, it is the statement of a belief. Thus a userbox saying that one is interested or knowledgeable in a particular religion is not divisive, and helpful to Wikipedia (eg, as a way to locate editors for an article), while a userbox stating that one believes or practices a religion is divisive and not helpful. So yes, I do believe that most of the userboxes in Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion should be deleted.--Constantine Evans 17:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Seperation of Church and State is NOT anti-religion. Keeping religion away from government It is a proven and good method of running a government. It could even be called pro-religion since it keeps one relgion from legislating other religions away. I'll stop there since this isn't a a place to debate the validity. Anyway, NOT ANTI-RELIGION, STRONG KEEP.
Weak Delete - While I believe in separation of church and state, this is nevertheless divisive, as are, in my opinion, all userboxes expressing a user's belief, so long as there are others who do not share that belief. Just because the belief is very popular and rational does not mean that the userbox should be allowed. However, I will admit that my view is not entirely in line with the inflammatory and divisive requirement for T1. --Constantine Evans 17:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the rationale provided by the above user is not justiciable. --Andy123(talk) 16:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree or disagree, it's an interesting perspective, but in the wrong venue. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The issue can certainly be interpreted as inflammatory and divisive, since announcing this viewpoint inflames opinion and is meant to divide WP into camps of pro and con.) On an aesthetic note, the U.S. Capitol building does NOT represent "state" except in the United States. This is an internationally used encyclopedia, therefore it is too specific. Nhprman 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, but the idea of separation of church and state originates from the US and the US Constitution. Petri Krohn 02:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until someone creates a template that says, "I support the ENTIRE 1st Amendment". Jim62sch 22:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-encyclopedic content not appropriate for template-space. --Cyde Weys 23:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have read through the new userbox policy, and I didn't come away with a feeling that it is against something like this. I interpreted it as banning userboxes that say things like "Kill Jews". Someone explain =( --Mboverload 23:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't take "kill ..." to make it divisive. There are numerous political and "belief" boxes that serve to line people up on one side or the other of an issue. If it DIVIDES people in this way, then it's DIVISIVE. That's a criteria for deletion, and an appropriate one. I would classify any box about religion, secessionist movements, the topic of race, any political issue (Bush, Iraq, Blair, Howard, parties, issues, etc.) as divisive, however benign these may be expressed in the box. The Founder has spoken about this and has expressed his view that this is not meant to be a social networking site, a free speech zone, or an experiment in Democracy (or political campaigning,) and that Userboxes "need to go." I do admit that deleting ONE box, usually the weakest side of the argument (numerically - measured by number of supporters on WP, not on the issue's merits) is problematic. But until the Founder steps up and bans all such boxes, or says "Sure, go ahead and use them," we have to use our judgement and the growing consensus is against their use. Hope this helps! Nhprman 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ResponseThanks for taking the time to explain the issues to me Nhprman! --Mboverload 22:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I had some effect! ;-) The argument that is often used, that it's good to see others' biases, is great when you're assessing who to vote for at the ballot box, and I can see it could be useful in some cases online, but in practice, here on WP it simply inspires opponents to create other Userboxes, usually ones that escalate the debate in unfriendly and divisive ways. Nhprman 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yet another — clearly wrong, IMHO — definition of divisive. We have articles which would fit that description. Brittanica has articles which would fit that description. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, so does Wikipedia. Announcing biases is often completely unnecessary, considering some users' edit history and blatantly stated intentions to "slant" an article in a certain way. Userboxes simply reinforce and give another outlet to POV-pushing. Nhprman 15:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be divisive (especially when dealing with divisive topics, such as, say, The Holocaust). But there's no reason we should have divisive userspace templates. That's just common-sense. --Cyde Weys 03:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely divisive userbox. Not only it divides fellow Wikipedians into 3 factions (those who support the idea, those who oppose it and those who don't give a #@&%), but also supports division in real life. It is also extremely inflammatory, twisting people's minds, spreading ill will towards admins and causing me to waste my time here. It is also responsible for so many people acting in bad faith, for 9/11 attacks, hunger in Africa and tsunamis. I believe there can be only one jugdement: keep. --Misza 13 ^{T C} 13:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly it is not divisive. grafikm_fr 16:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Antidisestablishmentarists are wasting their time. Kevin Baas^talk 16:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't assume that people who support deletion here are necessarily antidisestablishment. I am an atheist - I just don't think there should be any statement of opinion userboxes at all. One's opinion on separation of church and state should not have any bearing on deciding whether to delete. --Constantine Evans 02:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep I happen to be a religious person who supports the division of church and state, and I take strong exception to people who assume that holding such an opinion makes a person somehow "anti-religious". This is NOT an anti-religious template. Asarelah 18:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VERY, VERY, VERY strong keep someone should have the right to express their own views on their own userpage. Its not like this is in an article. To delete this would just be a form of censorship. IF WE DELETE ONE USERBOX WHICH SAYS A PERSON SUPPORTS SOMETHING, WE MUST DELETE ALL USERBOXES SUPPORTING SOMETHING. This is PC run amuck! PDXblazers 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally agree with this. Make it all, or none. Some great examples: Anti-Communist, Fascist, and Anti-Marx boxes were deleted, while all pro-Communist boxes have been "saved." And I have to say that this "voting" process to determine whether a box stays or not is highly biased, and contrary to the "no voting" concept here: [1] What we have here is voting, or more accurately, the Mob rallying to *certain* political boxes to protect them, while less popular opinions, or ones with weaker "networks" are erased. Fair? Nope. Nhprman 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is nothing socially "divisive" about a desire for separation of church and state. It is a simple statement of a political principle--that government and religion should not be intertwined. If we delete this, then to keep all userboxes which have political or religious overtones is nothing but pure hypocrisy. --Eastlaw 06:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Not divisive, not anti-religious. FinFangFoom 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not anti-religious. However the cross may be removed so that it doesn't focus on a specific religion.--Conudrum 17:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Then the wording should also say "religion and state" and not "church and state", aye?
Keep. Stop the damn userbox removals.
Super-dee-duper Strong Keep Like a million other people have said, if we delete all userboxes some Wikipedians consider "divisive", then we have to delete all userboxes. If there isn't one (I havent looked into it) maybe we should make an anti-seperation of church-state userbox? Just to keep things fair. --JoeBlowfromKokomo 19:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why has Church to meddle in everyday's businesses? User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I outright disagree that this userbox should be deleted, as the nominator claims it is a "sublte way of creating an anti-religion userbox." The userbox is a belief that a person feels about the operations of a government and does not mean that it is in any way supportive of an anti-religious mindset. It is possible, as I can say, to be religious and also support the seperation of church and state. The very nomination of this userbox illustrates a severe cases of biasness and not from the NPOV standpoint that Wikipedia is based. The uncredible nominator is nothing more than a multi-usernamed vandal, who is set to attempt to delete as many userboxes as he/she desires. (Notorious4life 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Strong Keep Respecting the purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. ----James Madison, 1803, letter objecting to the use of government land for churches.— Preceding unsigned comment added by fuhghettaboutit (talk • contribs) 04:43, April 11, 2006‎ (UTC)
Ultra-strong Keep nothing divisive, let alone anti-religion. --IronChris 04:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you delete this one, then you will have to delete all 'not so subtle' pro-religion user boxes. gunslotsofguns 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just an information: the guy who started this was blocked (see User_talk:Copus-corlione) for details. grafikm_fr 16:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Strong Keep. It is a widely held position and a centuries-old ideal. If one doesn't like it, then don't look at it. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 16:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
String Keep Unless we develop a policy that all non-encyclopaedia-essential userbox templates need to go, it's anti-NPOV to pick on this one because you don't agree with it. Also, not that this is even relevant, but: separation of church and state is NOT anti-religious; it is essential in order for religions to coexist. And, on top of that, why disallow anti-religious sentiment on userpages anyway? Opinion is opinion. A lot of people find this statement important, so we should mention it on our userpages. ~ Booyabazooka 20:18, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not divisive, not anti-religious. Userpages are not regular articles, and thus do not rely on NPOV. While very offensive (Nazi, racist, et al.) Userboxes should be deleted, this Userbox is not offensive. BDWill Talk Contribs 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As the creator of the template, I will say here and now that it is not in any way an anti-religious template. I would just as well shoot myself in the foot, being a Christian. It is a simple expression of the opinion that the church should not run the state and vice versa. In my case, I believe this should be so for the good of both entities, but I intentionally left the reason for holding the belief open-ended.

I am also having trouble puzzling out just how this is objectively inflammatory. If someone is inflamed by the proposition that other people might disagree with his notion that nations should be theocracies (or whatever it is that puts him in opposition to the position espoused by the template), then it is his problem for being too easily inflamed beyond what is reasonable. We cannot all bend over backwards to accommodate someone who decides to be oversensitive. Rogue 9 15:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the guy who did it was kicked out, I think you can edit the template back to its original state. It would be cool, because it deforms my userboxes... :P grafikm_fr 17:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The separation of church and state is an ideal and belief, and has nothing to do with divisiveness or anti-religion. It helps ensure freedom of religion, if anything. Wait...why are we still arguing over this? This "Corpus-corlione" guy isn't even around anymore. --The Ninth Bright Shine r (talk/741k/alktay/hablar/حديث/rede) 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I see no problems with this one. I consider myself a Christian and opposes its message btw, but people should be free to express themselves. Valentinian ^(talk) 21:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not divisive at all, it gives reference to one's feelings on a matter which in turn can allow for inferences on contributions from the user. However, it should be redesigned; the Capitol building is exclusive to the US and the cross is exlcusive to Christianity.Cambodianholiday 22:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can't pick and choose here. --Berserk798 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hilariously strong keep. This is no more divisive than anti-smoking or pro-NYC-statehood user boxes. It's a tenet of the US Constitution, for pity's sake. --Tysto 05:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commment You must be referring to some New Universal Revised version of the US Constitution, because my copy only talks about Congress not making laws "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (Which I happen to whole-heartedly support.) It doesn't mention "separation of Church and state." So this really is about a divisive political point of view. NThurston 14:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doesn't looks like my vote is needed, but just in case. Crumbsucker 13:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Not Anti Religion, nor Anti Government. Comment by NThurston regarding US Constitution ignores the fact that while the Amendment refers to Congress alone the courts held that this extends to the executive and judicial branches as well. Obviously, through court interpretation, additional meaning has been applied to the words as written.--Vidkun 15:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox, since it is strongly political, has the potential to be divisive. It should not be used except via subst, if then. ++Lar: t/c 20:20, 13 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.

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 Circeus 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:InfoboxMedalLine

Template:InfoboxMedalLine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Not used as far as I can tell, I think all the various medal count pages use just {{flag}} these days. Sherool (talk) 15:04, 4 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.

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 Circeus 22:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User UAlbany2

Delete Seems kinda redundant, IMHO. JB82
Delete, (Template:User UAlbany) if you want to refer to the same place in another way then subst and make the changes. gren グレン 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems harmless enough. Why not allow two aesthetics per university? Kukini 00:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While, in theory, I don't have a problem with more than one per school, the reality is that nobody at all is using it. Everybody from SUNY Albany seems to prefer {{user UAlbany}}, which has several links.NThurston 18:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kukini --Andy123(talk) 16:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of use. JoshuaZ 21:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more than one userbox for one school is ridiculous. --Cyde Weys 03:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Osbus 18:36, 13 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.