Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 February 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2, 2006

[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, as it has been cleaned up. CFIF 01:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:EWS CORP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Delete — Ugly, clashes with some pages, needs major cleanup. May as well delete. CFIF 23:37, 2 February 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. -Splashtalk 00:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PC-461 class coastal patrol ship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Only used on one article, and the template name is longer than the contents. Not really useful SeventyThree(Talk) 23:32, 2 February 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. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Ship fate box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Not a template, not used or useful, not an article either Rmhermen 22:42, 2 February 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 Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft, reason was "Page no longer in use and superceded by other templates". - Bobet 13:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Succession box cont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This page is completely worthless. Its two links have been moved to a more used format and this template is now not used by anyone. Its initial purpose was never necessary to begin with, since a normal Template:Succession box can be compounded with itself. Request speedy deletion.
Whaleyland 19:50, 2 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Sex EducatioN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Another POV pusher template. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal guideline is not a license to enforce your views on everyone else... which, ironically, you should be against, since you evidently dislike individualism (of which a point of view is part and parcel) so much. Rogue 9 16:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My personal guideline is entirely within my purview of what I will vote keep and what I will vote delete on. As there is no userbox policy yet, we are obligated to either follow precedent and/or our own conscience (you are welcome to help develop one, however). Any insinuation that I dislike individuality will be viewed as a personal attack, as this is about userboxes, not userpages or self-expression. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should stating your opinions be acceptable in prose, but unacceptable when surrounded by a box and accompanied by a little picture? This seems to be an issue of convenience rather than actual belief. --Malthusian (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite apart from the issue of consistency I already mentioned, I too find it difficult to visualize open edit warfare because two editors read each other's userpages and disagreed with their opinion of how teachers should go about telling children where their dicks are and where to put them. --Malthusian (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tfd is getting so pointless. I recognize most of the names on here because you guys all vote the same way on every template. It seems like whether or not a template get's deleted or not has more to do with how many people from each "side" show up here than a debate over the merits of this individual userbox. It seems rather pointless to continue to do this for new userboxes week after week when we all know what everyone is going to say. Can we please agree on a userbox policy so we can stop doing this already?--God of War 05:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should have noticed that I do not vote delete on all userboxes, only on those that are divisive. the latest example is black coffee - unfortunately although i didn't vote delete - i can't find it in me to vote keep either - because i think the whole thing is out of control - so your accusation that i vote the same way on every template is simply not true - some i choose to abstain. Trödel•talk 12:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
la di da? What does that mean? --Dschor 21:47, 4 February 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 NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we can all be angry at admins who don't follow policy. I'm annoyed by it myself, and wish that people, and admins especially, stick to policy. But adding a link to Kelly Martin's RFC using the word "pissed" is just a personal attack. Hope I am following policy by bringing it here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or perhaps not? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: perusal of WP:CSD suggests that {{db-attack}} might well apply. Any takers? —Phil | Talk 11:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though the link may not be the best choice, the sentiment is valid. It is not a personal attack, because the user is upset about an action, not a person. If you feel that the link is the source of the problem, find a better page to link to that represents the subject. --Dschor 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A house divided against itself cannot stand. If wikipedians don't believe in wikipedia then what's the point? If you chose to be part of any "team" (marriage, football) and don't like how it's going, either work to fix it, or leave. But hanging around being disparaging isn't a valid option.--Esprit15d 13:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of how we fix it. Deleting this template would be an attempt to obscure the problem, rather than solve it. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TfD nominations of harmless userboxes are not a proper use of TfD. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This template is not divisive - it is descriptive. It is also timeous. (thanks, Doc) --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attack. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This template says either one of two things: either that the user doesn't think admins should violate policy (which is a truism and therefore useless) or that the user thinks a certain admin or admins has violated policy, but doesn't feel like saying which, which is cowardice. --Malthusian (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion nomination is the trolling - the box is fine. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or not. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O RLY? --Malthusian (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. And might I say that this out-of-process deletion, and other flagrant bad-faith moves is exactly the reason why this userbox should not only be allowed, but actively encouraged. The clique passing themselves off as "neutral" as they make completely biased and subjective decisions need to see that we've got an eye on them. --Daniel 06:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The irony is, that the thing this userbox brings to people's attention has just happened to it. Maybe if admins started doing their job properly, instead of deleting something they didnt like, then this userbox wouldnt have been needed to start with. The solution is for admins to start following policy instead of acting like God in their own little world, deleting stuff without concensus! - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • T | C 15:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore because I want to see what we're supposed to be reaching consensus on. Rogue 9 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've recreated the box and will do so again if asked if consensus has not been reached here. I don't care if you love this box or hate this box(I don't have any opinion) -- if we disregard this process, those who wish to harm Wikipedia will win. Please, if you dislike the box and you're an admin, just vote like anyone else, or close the debate after 7 days. Karmafist 18:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless, divisive in intent. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the userbox, or the deletion nomination?? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
or a deletion debate that does the same?? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing opinion is evil? We should all just shut up? --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the slogan: Speedy Deletion is not a Toy, but yours appears to be catchy as well. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not? Oh boy, I'd better whip out my Undeletion ray gun... --Deathphoenix 14:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Malthusian. --Kbdank71 20:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncivil. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 20:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree that the template is inappropriate. However, I think there is a valid question here, which is how is a user supposed to deal with an admin who is violating Wikipedia policy? There's a clear power differential which could cause (even if only in perception) a case of bullying, where a user with more power (an admin) is pushing their will upon someone with less power (a non-admin user). I have no opinion on whether Kelly Martin did or didn't do anything wrong, but for cases where an admin is stepping outside the bounds, is there a clear guideline somewhere on Wikipedia that advises users how to report problems? An RfC is a bureaucratic nightmare, and AN/I is hard to find, plus it can be a chaotic madhouse, where reports get pounced on by whoever happens to be reading the board at the time (who may or may not have time to give it a serious read). Another problem with AN/I is that things just scroll off in a few days, so there's no centralized repository. Perhaps there should be some policy like requiring each admin to have a subpage like "/Reported incidents" where users could express concerns (or praise)? Sure there'd be a lot of junk that would accumulate on them, but it would also be a straightforward place to post something, that would be easy to find and easy to deal with, but not too public. Elonka 22:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore again, because MarkSweep is too damned fast. I note that it is ironic that he says Karmafist's recreation was out of process, when the only thing that was out of process was his initial deletion. Rogue 9 00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smite from above as per above. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to administrators Guys, this is just a userbox. Don't get all in a huff, cast your delete votes and eagerly await the day when this TfD debate expires. Yes, in the deletion log I read that it is "trolling" or a "personal attack", but funnily enough I don't see those criteria at WP:CSD#General. No vote. Ashibaka tock 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this one should be preserved for posterity. --Dschor 21:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely for the BJAODN yearbooks. 72.193.153.70 (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2024 (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. -Splashtalk 00:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CityRailSydney/Navigation end (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User CAoW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanedidona/CAoW, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 2.
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.