Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 4, 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 pending any new userbox policy. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Communist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive userbox. Alibabs 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost all of them. SushiGeek 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This would be fine, if this was an official policy. It's not, however. Instead we have selective saving and selective deletion, based on these "votes" by mobs of supporters or deletionists. Does that make sense to you?Nhprman UserLists 03:09, 8 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 kept per WP:POINT nomination. AzaToth 11:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User_Nazi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Divisive userbox. Alibabs 23:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who creates a Userbox and then offers it up to be deleted as "divisive" in the same day? Nhprman UserLists 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is the above comment correct? If so, this userbox has been created solely to make a point.
  • That said, it is only common sense to speedily delete this userbox. The reason is not that it is merely "divisive", or that all such political userboxes should be deleted. Deleting it would not prove a point about that. Rather, there are some specific viewpoints so extreme and hateful that their expression here tends to bring the whole project into disrepute. Wikipedia is not a public space where there are reasons to allow all viewpoints to be expressed. It is a private space where tolerance of freedom of political speech has an outer boundary. That boundary is reached if the whole project would tend to be brought into disrepute if it lent its resources to the expression of certain very extreme viewpoints, of which Nazism is one. Therefore, deleting a userbox expressing a commitment to Nazism cannot await the formulation of a policy about userboxes in general. I don't know why the userbox was created - whether to express a view sincerely or to make a point - but it was, at minimum, a very unwise and provocative act. In my opinion, there should be some further consequence for whoever did this. Metamagician3000 02:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but everyone is entitled to their opinion--I don't care how extreme it may be--and I believe that they should be allowed to express that . . . in this case by having a Userbox that says they are a member of the Nazi party. Userboxes should not be used to advocate the death of a person or race. Example: "I support eliminating ______ race." or "I support the assasination of __________." . Granted, the Nazi Party may support these ideas, but it is a legitimate political party, despite their rediculous (and few supporters) positions. The Nazi Party is allowed, care of the First Amendment, in the United States. I know the First Amendment applies only to the United States, but this First Amendment should apply to the whole world, in my opinion (POV!!!!!!). And just so you know my POV, I am Jewish (as well as believing in his Noodly Appendage of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.). --ALSO-- Political Userboxes should be kept. It establishes a users POV. The reasoning why this Userbox was created is possibly the only reason why it should be deleted. If someone makes a User:Nazi box and actually uses it, I'd support keeping it. In this case, the person created it and then listed it to be deleted. This is simply nonsense by the creator. The creator shouldn't even be allowed to create userboxes if all this person is going to is waste space. --myselfalso 05:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you correctly point out, the world does not have a First Amendment (though similiar free speech rights exist throughout the world, obviously.) Even so, it surely doesn't apply to a private corporation (Wikia) which makes its own rules for what is and is not acceptable in space it's paying for (WP:NOT). I will say this, though, if one view is allowed here as a Userbox, all views should be, not just the ones the elite think are "acceptable," as Metamagician3000 seems to believe. Interesting that "I'm a nazi" is deleted while various "I'm a communist" boxes and two "I'm anti-fascist" ones are allowed to remain as Userboxes. That's blatantly unfair and POV. Frankly, userboxes as templates are a bad idea, and have wasted a whole lot of time. This debate over a bogus one is a good example of that. Nhprman UserLists 03:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Today the nominator created this userbox, added it to Userboxes/Beliefs, and nominated it for deletion. That seems like a flagrant violation of WP:POINT to me. - Nellis 02:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to apologise for any offence taken. I acknowledge that I was merely trying to make a WP:POINT. Alibabs 06:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You violated WP:POINT. Perhaps you should read over it again. --myselfalso 19:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is probably the lamest, point violation I have ever seen. Lame in the sense that not only did you create a template not worth keeping to make a point, but you also wasted the time of editors for something like this. Moe ε 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do have to say, poor Naziism (being sarcastic here) has no defenders, as opposed to the pro-communist box, in the conversation above. If this one is deleted, I sure hope the other is, too. The same if the other is saved. This POV-pushing using Userboxes has to end. I hope this proves it. Nhprman UserLists 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboxes are for user pages. User pages are not articles. Userboxes are not allowed to be used on article pages. Userboxes should be allowed to be POV, since they are for user-space, not article-space. Therefore, User-Nazi and User-Communist should be allowed to exist. The reason why it was deleted in the first place was because it was created "to make a WP:POINT". --myselfalso 04:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This userbox would be perfectly acceptable if a real Nazi wanted to create it and use it. As it was created simply to cause disruption, it should be deleted. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 19:05, 7 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 subst and delete Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Img (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
a "place page in one category"-template AzaToth 23:26, 4 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 keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SpecialChars (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Template:SpecialCharsNote (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Useless, not practical, NPOV. So what characters are "special" characters? Is all characters which Unicode less than 32 or greater or equals to 128 "special", or is Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters "special", or is some characters like ✁✒✣✴❅❖ "special", or is Unicode 4.1 only characters "special", to say if a character "special" is POV, and it is platform and browser critical, it makes no sense. Wikipedia is internationalized, and too many articles include "special characters", so these templates are not practical. I strong suggest delete these templates, and for those users encounter problems to read the specific article, they can try to read Help:Special characters. — Yaohua2000 23:21, 4 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 keep for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0-kr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Localized and unused {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}. --Puzzlet Chung 18:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Creative Commons specializes their licences to individual jurisdictions and this is just the Korean one.[1] It is in no way redundant to {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} and being unused in this case is no grounds for deleting since someone from Korea, (one of) the world's most connected countries, may well want to use it in short order. -Splashtalk 03:22, 5 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused template. Supposedly to be used to protect an article because "the article has achieved wide public notice."

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 all Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This is a nomination for multiple templates to be deleted. The full list of templates is:

The talk pages of the above templates all redirect to Template talk:Noinclude. According to this page:

This does not function corectly and is in the testing phase, but was intended to function in the same way that {{Template:Hide}} works, but without generating div tags that break justification of text.

The templates were created in November 2005, have not been modified since, and are not currently used anywhere.

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 -> keep Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AcademyAwardBestPicture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Seems too big and cumbersome. And since I was the one who previously marked all of the Academy Award for Best Picture articles with {{Succession box}} about two months ago [2] [3] [4], I think the template nav box is sort of unnecessary. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore, I believe it violates Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes#Article series boxes: For very long series, it is preferable to use incumbent series, which only show the elements of the series immediately preceding and succeeding the article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I feel that it meets all 3 conditions. (1) From any given Best Picture article I would want to be able to travel to any other Best Picture article. (2) An article on a Best Picture winner is likely to mention the previous or subsequent Best Picture winner because it gives context to a victory (its often commented that one years winners have a lot to do with the politics of last years winners, etc.). (3) All Best Picture articles could become substantial. They are all notable films that could one day even become featured articles. I agree that the series is long; I disagree that it is extremely long. Its hard for me to think of examples off the top of my head, US Presidents comes to mind. Seems like we are going to want a template that lists all of them even 1000 years from now when that list becomes huge. I think we have to weigh the length of the list against the usefulness of the connection. Someone might be reading an article about a best picture winner and wonder: "What won in X year?" or "What was the first winner?" "Have any similar films won?" etc. I think its more important for the purposes of this discussion to be talking about the specifics of the Best Picture winners. It's doubtful this template would be used as precedent because there are few applicable situations. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:28, 4 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Roman religion (hub) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Another large, ugly, incomplete list of links. Now being added to the middle of articles. Septentrionalis 00:55, 4 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 Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Djibouti infobox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete because it was reformated to the Template:Infobox country standard with more info that was more up to date MJCdetroit 02:17, 4 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.