Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 26 March 28 >

March 27, 2006

[edit]

Template:Missing information

[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 new version, Circeus 16:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Template:Missing information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Missing information
Template used primarily for trolling, unnecessary, redundant, etc...--64.12.116.135 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator for deletion is making a false statement. The template has never been used. It is brand new, and I created it. Give it a chance to see if it's useful. I think it can help reduce edit wars. RJII 18:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's creation is an act of trolling--64.12.116.135 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel trolled, that's all in your head. I don't know how anyone could construe the creation of such a benign template as trolling. You followed me here from Adminstrator's Noticeboard and have been harrassing me. That's what this vote for deletion is about. RJII 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork of {{content}} — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonsense. That's a meaningless and useless template. By the way, what POV is supposedly being pushed? RJII 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My mistake. It's still a fork of {{content}}, which was obtained as an alternative to your POV deleted templates {{Exclusion}} and {{Exclusion-Section}}. However, the non-encyclopedic content is that the disputed information is missing -- if someone were to add it, the tag would probably remain, but be wrong. {{content}} is neutral as to whether the disputed content is present. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand why you don't want to give the template a chance. It hasn't even been tested in use yet. If it causes problems, then vote for deletion. I could be right --it could reduce edit wars. That's certainly my intent of creating it. If someone can put up a tag and get consensus to put something in an article instead of an edit war ensuing because of a lack of consensus, that's great. RJII 01:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not give {{content}} a chance, then? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am giving it a chance. Do you see me trying to delete it? Even though I think it's a meaningless vague template that will never be put into any valuable use I'm not trying to get it deleted. I realize that I could be wrong and am willing to see what happens. I wish you could do the same. RJII 05:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well -- I suppose I'm not willing to give a blinking* template a chance. (By blinking, I mean one that should be removed immediately if the "problem" is fixed, and theoretically restored if the problem is unfixed — assuming the person who unfixes it knows that there was a problem.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's what you're supposed to do with ALL dispute templates. I just noted it in the usage to make it explicit, for dummies. In fact, I should go add that to the usage sections of all the templates. RJII 03:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And you're the same guy that put up a vote to get those deleted without giving them a chance to see if they're useful in practice. Lighten up. RJII 16:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was ready to give them a chance (as you'll see by my comments on that TfD) but after a few more people commented to delete I changed back my mind. Still, if you create this, why didn't you create the over-emphasis template? -- infinity0 16:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What "over-emphasis template"? RJII 02:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This article may have information which is inapproriate to the the topic or is non-encyclopedic." — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' I don't know what you mean? Is there such a template? If not, create one. Sounds like a good one to me. RJII 21:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of all the people on Wikipedia, I can't help finding it ironic who voted here. 64.12.116.135 has been following me around claiming I'm a sockpuppet of someone else. Arthur Rubin has historically been a strong critic of mine. And, infinity is someone I've been having major problems with. You'll have to excuse me if I find it hard to believe this is just coincidence. Of all the people on Wikipedia... RJII 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I edited the template just now, does anybody think it's less objectionable than before? It is, admittedly, more specific than {{content}}, and now does so without implying that the information rightfully belongs in the article. –Tifego(t)18:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least for now, I'm not convinced it's trolling, unnecessary, or redundant. I might change my mind if someone can give a much better argument for why it should be deleted. Hopefully it won't be overused and misused. "Probably won't be used" isn't a good argument IMO. Wikipedia probably has lots of things that waste more space than this template and have less potential for being helpful. –Tifego(t)01:08, 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.

Template:Las Vegas casinos

[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 Circeus 16:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC) Template:Las Vegas casinos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Template replaced by several location specific templates. Vegaswikian 06:25, 27 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:User not independent Kosovo

[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 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Correction, it's not on a user page, it exists in the Template space, begging for a challenge and inciting others to create boxes to counter it. That's not why we're here (and the owner, Jimbo, would argue that Userpages aren't meant to be seen as personal Webpages, either.) If you want this on your page, you are absolutely correct - simply cut it and paste the code into your User page. Yes, still divisive, and perhaps not really smart (since it reveals biases) but better than the Userbox War being created because of these Templates. Nhprman UserLists 20:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question How is it "not really smart" to reveal biases on my userpage? Gatherton 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Because some person scurrying over to your Userpage and "discovering" "evidence" that you are biased this way or that, then using that in endless p*ssing contests about articles, detracts from the mission of the Project, which isn't meant to be a collection of "tribes" fighting each other and skirmishing over minutuae. At least that's what the Founder, Jimbo Wales, says. He says this is NOT meant to be a social networking site. One day, he'll speak up a bit more forcefully on that and put an end to this bickering over boxes once and for all. Until then, we should all vote "NO" on all divisive, political Userboxes. Nhprman UserLists 04:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I believe that your interest in combing other people's userboxes for material you consider inappropiate would fall under "minutuae," no?
  • Um, no. I have no desire to do that, but people don't even have to go to User pages to see Userboxes. All someone has to do is check out the Template space (where we have list of "pro-" this and "anti-" that) or go to this endless, daily deletion log - and what do you know! - THERE is where the Userboxes are. Like I said (or hopefully, at least implied) people use these boxes to rally the troops and circle the wagons, etc. during debates over what *should* be how to make articles fair and bias-free. It's hard to build consensus when people are out looking for reasons to "expose" someone's biases or agendas (real or imagined.) Nhprman UserLists 06:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment/Question are you arguing that we should delete templates that discourage breaking up countries, but that it's OK to make templates that encourage separatists? How is one less divisive than the other. Maybe I don't understand your pattern. Gatherton 16:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that I did understand your pattern, which is incredible because it doesn't make much sense. WP is not the national endowment for self determination, so don't try to make it a group of people who are so fervantly committed to "independent (fill in blank) movements" as you are. You supposedly support "people's freedom and right to self-govern" but you want to limit what someone's opinions are? I'd think that someone interested in self rule would be interested in allowing differing opinions. Additionally, you can't fully make the assumption that it would be better to let every separatist group or region get it's way.Gatherton 05:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is totally consistent and correct. Both should either be deleted or saved. Additionally, this exchange is an excellent example why these political/belief boxes are divisive. NhprmanUserLists 06:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that. Your argument, Gatherton, makes perfect sense. One cannot allow "self-determination" boxes while censoring all other views. My perferred solution is to eliminate *both* kinds of boxes, since I buy into the idea that Wikipedia really isn't the place to be fighting over such things. But until both kinds are deleted - and it will take a ruling on policy from the Founder - I know this fight will go on and on. Nhprman UserLists 04:16, 3 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:User not independent Montenegro

[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 no consensus, defaults to keep Circeus 16:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Correction, it's not on a user page, it exists in the Template space, begging for a challenge and inciting others to create boxes to counter it. That's not why we're here (and the owner, Jimbo, would argue that Userpages aren't meant to be seen as personal Webpages, either.) If you want this on your page, you are absolutely correct - simply cut it and paste the code into your User page. Yes, still divisive, and perhaps not really smart (since it reveals biases) but better than the Userbox War being created because of these Templates. Nhprman UserLists 20:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep people will have views. It's better we all know what they are. Avalon 23:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commment/Question are you arguing that we should delete templates that discourage breaking up countries, but that it's OK to make templates that encourage separatists? How is one less divisive than the other. Maybe I don't understand your pattern. Gatherton 16:18, 31 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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_27&oldid=1138690752"