Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 January 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21, 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, but I think these debates might be conducted more usefully if people would consider the appropriateness of using the functionality the template offers instead of simply dividing largely along pro- and anti-AUM lines.-Splashtalk 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several color templates

[edit]

Template:Tsuen Wan Line colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Island Line colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tung Chung Line colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Airport Express colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Tseung Kwan O Line colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Disneyland Resort Line colour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — All contain only a color. Used in blatant violation of WP:AUM. Circeus 20:16, 21 January 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 Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MTR

[edit]

Template:MTR (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete — Appearsto be entirely redundant with {{MTRStations}} Circeus 20:02, 21 January 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. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2005 Kashmir earthquake casualties

[edit]

Template:2005 Kashmir earthquake casualties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

keep it!

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:Webcomic

[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. JYolkowski // talk 21:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Template:Webcomic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Delete — This template's text says not to use it in favour of other templates. Currently nothing links to it, so maybe it's time to get rid of it. JYolkowski // talk 18:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is the same principal as {{fairuse}} or {{tl:screenshot}}. Should a user choose this it will try to point them to a better choice. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 22:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I wrote that text on {{fairuse}} and {{screenshot}}. The purpose of that text is to get people to stop using those tags, with the intent of being able to delete them in the future. JYolkowski // talk 00:57, 22 January 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 Scott Davis Talk 12:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islands of the Suvadives

[edit]

The United Suvadive Republic does not exist any more, as it was dissolved in 1960 and claimed back by the Maldives, to which the group of islands originally belonged to. I propose that we delete this template to avoid misleading non-familiar readers into concluding that these islands currently belong to the non-existant former republic. --Fizan 12:10, 21 January 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator, as it is now moot (the election is over). I've attempted to initiate a general discussion about situations like this on WP:VP/P.

Template:ElectionResultsCA

[edit]

Blatant violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats and Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. We do not censor content that might violate foreign laws. Imagine the precedent that might be set ("This article contains pictures that might violate obscenity laws in Saudi Arabia"...) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The creator of the templateA contributor to the template has removed the TFD tag twice. I'm disappointed, since this kind of behavior is generally seen from trolls and vandals, not established Wikipedians. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He shouldn't remove the tag. But at the same time this template was still being developed. Why did you not join in the discussion rather than trying to delete it. And your only comment about the template at Talk:Canadian Federal Election, 2006 (after your nomination) was extremely non-NPOV Nfitz 05:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm dumbfounded by this statement. First of all, WP:NPOV applies to articles (and templates attached to articles). It does not apply to comments on talk pages. Secondly, I did not express any personal opinion, but quoted one Wikipedia policy and one Wikipedia guideline ruling out the use of this template. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm dumbfounded you would go for a TFD without even joining the ongoing discussion. Perhaps discussions shouldn't be NPOV, but why are you going off on such a tangent talking about US courts, which is completely and totally irrelevent to the entire discussion? No-one involved in the discussion ever raised, or even considered US involvment in this. It's absolutely not relevent Nfitz 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mea culpa for removing the tag, but see below. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relatedly, the nominator – citing similar reasons herein – attempted to remove the long-standing "future election" template from atop the federal election article without any discussion or consensus to do so anywhere. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Canadian criminal laws are only a threat in Canada, not to Wikipedia servers in Florida, because no American court would enforce a fine or sanction imposed by a foreign criminal law. As to Canadian Wikipedians, what they post is their own risk and responsibility under their home laws. Postdlf 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who cares what US courts will and won't enforce. The concern is that Canadians will unwittingly add information, and then be charged; which has happened in the past. There's nothing in that template that mentions, the US, Gambia, or Moldovia! It isn't a threat, it's a notice. Nothing is stopping Canadians adding material after they have read the notice. They are not encouraged not to do so. The template was designed only to be used during a 3-hour period next Monday between the polls closing on the East cost to when the polls close on the west coast - which is the only period of time that the act covers the reporting of results. No one is suggesting generic permanent warning templates be applied to all pages ... or any pages Nfitz 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator should get one's facts straight. First of all, I didn't create the template, someone else did based on extensive discussions on the Canadian election talk page; I recently edited it to embrace some of the notions discussed so far. Second, the template arose out of concerns for the impropriety of Canadians and others posting results online prematurely (i.e., in contravention of Canadian electoral law), which has been prosecuted in the past, and out of concern to not imperil said persons or Wikipedia in any way. Third, the template was nominated for deletion without the nominator engaging in any discussion on the talk page beforehand. Fourth, the template is still in its infancy, undergoing discussion, ad hoc, and not yet finalised. Lastly, the nominator's insinuations of the template being "ridiculous" and implications that related behaviour is analogous to trolling/vandalism obviates not only the contributions of users who have weighed in on the topic but calls to question the judgement of the nominator. So, who should be disappointed here? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand by my statement that the template is ridiculous. I'm allowed to say that; it's a comment on the template, not its creator (which apparently is indeed someone other than EPA; sorry about that). WP:NPOV applies to articles and the templates attached to them, not to discussion on talk pages. While talk pages aren't a free-for-all (we aren't, for instance, supposed to debate the underlying political issues on talk pages of politics-related articles) there is nothing untoward about citing Wikipedia guidelines and policy and pointing out that legal threats are unfounded in this context. My only reference to trolling/vandalism was that your acts bordered on vandalism and that as an established user I expected a higher standard of conduct from you, since you know better than to do things like remove deletion tags while a debate is in progress. Nor do I feel that I was obligated to discuss this template on the talk page before nominating it, since it blatantly violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines - being both a disclaimer template and a legal threat - and no mixture of edits would change this. If a template is salvageable, it should indeed be fixed. This one isn't. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The key to all of this is: in your opinion. What's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander. And I'm allowed to say and maintain that the TfD is similarly ridiculous and mildly inappropriate. You evincing 'blatant violations of policy' does not make it so, nor does it obviate significant discussions and citations for and against beforehand (and I've been keeping track of the Village Pump chat too, as well as being involved on the election talk page). This ad hoc template is, after all, dynamic: a template once changed can be changed again. Even an opponent who initated the chat on the Village Pump suggested editions to the template that may yet be incorporated; you went ahead and nominated it for deletion anyway. I've since read up on TfDs (being fairly virginal regarding TfDs) and regret removing the tag (mea cupla), but I'd expect higher standards from any Wikipedian before making such a nomination. Ditto for nonsensical accusations of 'borderline vandalism', which stem from efforts to compromise the integrity of Wp. And as any glance at the above and the election discussion page will clearly show, you couldn't be more wrong about that and, arguably, this. Lastly and frankly, I'm rather unconcerned if you're disappointed. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, if the template is going to be added for a grand total of three hours, what's the big deal? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it violates Wikipedia policy and it sets a bad precedent. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have stated that the template is both a threat, and a disclaimer. It is neither. It is no more a threat, than a copyright notice is; and we don't ban those; it is simply making people aware of something they may not be aware of. And I don't see how it is a disclaimer ... you'll have to explain that one further Nfitz 07:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a disclaimer because it reads, in part, "This article contains information about the current Canadian election. It is likely to contain information that is speculative or unverifiable in nature." If that statement isn't a disclaimer, then nothing is. And your analogy with copyright law is flawed because the Wikimedia Foundation is in the U.S. and is therefore subject to American copyright laws. Conversely, the Foundation is not subject to Canadian election laws, not being based in Canada. It's true that a Canadian citizen could get in trouble for posting information that violates Canadian law. But that doesn't justify a disclaimer. A Chinese citizen could get in trouble for reading, or posting, certain information related to Tibet, Taiwan, or Falun Gong. A German citizen might get in trouble for reading the Swastika article since it contains a banned depiction of that symbol. A Saudi citizen could get in trouble for reading... well, too many articles to mention here. Shall all of them have disclaimer templates as well? We need to look beyond the specifics of this case and see what kind of a precedent we are setting. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • How is this any more a disclaimer than Template:Future film? If your troubled by the wording, edit it. I'll grant you the copyright comment ... And how is it a legal warning? I don't see how a 3-hour notification of what the law is, is going to set a precedent to tagging anything China doesn't like with a warning ... let's be realistic here. Nfitz 08:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or: how is this substantially different from the usual Template:Future election template (the part-basis for the nominated template) which states: "This article or section contains information about an upcoming election. It is likely to contain information of a speculative nature and the content about candidates may change dramatically as the election approaches and more information becomes available"? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the question is posed to me: this shouldn't be a big deal, as the template is ad hoc. Essentially, Canada is a big place. Voters will be going to the polls across Canada at staggered times, and the Canada Elections Act/Elections Canada prohibits the posting of any results until all polls are closed in all ridings nationwide so as not to potentially affect voter intentions and results elsewhere (namely in Western Canada). The template is intended to address the possible improprieties of posting results prematurely and given a prior instance when a Canadian was charged for doing just that online. If the question is posed to the nominator, of course I can't answer that. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. —Nightstallion (?) 10:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, Wikipedia:No legal threats is quite essential to the funtioning of the project. Also, we don't need to explicitly tell people that we might be wrong, since I think they're pretty much able to figure that out themselves. - ulayiti (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mirror Vax 11:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is in no way contrary to WP:NLT, it is a mere statement of the relevant Canadian law. I find it somewhat ironic that those who object to this discussion on First Amendment grounds feel free to try to prevent me (the original author of the template) from citing Canadian law in an educational manner. Surely it is educational to inform non-Canadians that Canada imposes a blackout on official results until the close of all polls: the U.S. does not do so because the declaration of results is the responsability of individual states, most other countries do not have to run staggered polling times. Surely it is only honest to point out that any results appearing on the page before that time cannot be officially verified. Commons:Template:Nazi symbol is a precedent for warning users against possible law infrigement, as are many of the image copyright tags. If any user feels that the First Amendment gives them the right to flout foreign criminal law, they should read the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the LICRA v. Yahoo! case (the relevant extract is at the bottom of that article). Physchim62 (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Florida is not part of the Ninth Circuit. Their goofball rulings regarding LICRA v. Yahoo! are irrelevant here. --Aaron 14:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But what about the next election? It's unlikely that there will be any clear victor in this election, and there will be yet another one within 9-18 months. If there was to be another TFD in 2 weeks to remove this, because it is not of any use, then that is fine. But to establish precedent this vote should be based on the issue of whether the template is appropriate at this time. Nfitz 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a serious matter, Canadians have been charged for posting this information on the internet. Considering this article is of primary interest to Canadian editors, it is appropriate to inform them of their responsibility under Canadian law.--Colle 19:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the reason for this notice, so far as I can see, is largely to caution Canadians who may unknowingly violate the laws, and be prosecuted, which has happened before. It is not a threat, and may not be applicable to Wikipedia itself or anyone outside Canada, but it is definitely a matter which should concern the Canadian users. It is also useful to warn people that the results posted may not be accurate. Ikh (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The Supreme Court had ruled it was legal to post results. Wikipedia is hosted on a US based server. As long as someone in a northern US state posts it, it's is 100% legal. Tawker 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not a legal threat, nor is it censorship. Its merely a warning to Canadians not to trust the posted results until elections Canada posts official results. It is a prudent thing to do and since its going to be gone as soon as Elections Canada posts their official results - it serves a useful purpose. LinuxDude 07:30, 22 January 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 Deleted as a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Canderson7 (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User does not trust Jimbo

[edit]

pointless, unhelpful, and has no links to it anyway. Derex 01:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I disagree with the message but until a consensus is reached banning such userboxes, this has as much validity as the "this user trusts Jimbo" UBs I've seen. That being said, if it's not used, I can see grounds for deletion. - Hayter 13:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete "This user thinks that Jimbo is a godless Commie" Is an attack and doesn't belong here. The category with it's porn site reference needs to go also. Rx StrangeLove 15:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it seems to be an attack template (does this apply under the attack page CSD?). It's also a personal attack against Jimbo (and therefore User:Jimbo Wales. I have no comment on the entire userbox issue... but this goes a bit too far. Maybe it can be rewritten, but this form should be deleted nevertheless.
  • Speedy delete, blatant personal attack. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:27, 21 January 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_21&oldid=1110182079"