Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 March 9

< March 8	March 10 >

March 9, 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 replace with {{content}} and delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Exclusion, Template:Inclusion-Section, Template:Exclusion-Section

Template:Exclusion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Exclusion-Section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:Inclusion-Section (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User:RJII created Template:Exclusion and Template:Exclusion-Section. ~~User:Essjay~~ User:backburner001 added the exclusion-section template to here and then User:RadioKirk subsequently created Template:Inclusion-Section. Currently, Template:Inclusion does not exist. I believe these templates are pointless and will only serve to create a new dispute over the old one, on what to put on the actual page. The templates are inherently POV, since it asserts that the piece of information is relevant or irrelevant, depending on which template is used. {{NPOV}} is sufficient for any disputes. -- infinity0 18:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - btw. -- infinity0 18:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I knew I should have made the templates under my alternate name. "infinity" is an enemy who has been following me around Wikipedia and deleting my edits. Anyway, there's a great need for the Template:Exclusion and the Template:Exclusion-Section templates. There are templates regarding information that's IN articles, but there wasn't one dealing with information that is being taken OUT of articles. The reader needs to know that there's a dispute going on about information that was taken out of the article, and for that reason the text "MAY" be missing an important piece of information. When a consensus is reached that the information should not be included in the article, the dispute tag is removed. Or, if a consensus is reached that the information should be included, it's put in the article and the tag is removed. I think it would reduce edit wars, greatly. A huge source of edit wars occur because people are taking out and putting back in the same information back and forth. If someone can just put a tag up, then the dispute gets moved to the talk page instead of edit warring. When the dispute is resolved, the tag is removed. The editors and readers are both better off for it. RJII 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing people of stalking you and deleting your edits is bad faith. Also, you're not allowed to have "alternate names..." :| Seriously though, you'll notice I looked around further and spotted that your template had already created a dispute within a day of its creation, leading to the creation of Template:Inclusion-Section (which you failed conveniently to create yourself). That was why I put up this TfD. The templates give out a POV message. -- infinity0 18:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's before the tag was refined, so that's not really relevant. The wording on it is different now. RJII 19:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? What did the version User:Essjay used say? -- infinity0 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true one is not allowed to have alternate names. It's a great tool for editing different articles, so that one's edits are judged on their merits, rather than on who the editor is. As, long as it's not done to create the deception of agreement or activity within an article (as in someone agreeing with themselves) it's fine. RJII 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm telling the truth. When I make an edit, you're right there to delete it. You managed to find that I created this template and have put it up for deletion. Only you know if you're "stalking" my edits. And, there is absolutely nothing POV about the two templates I created. They will serve to reduce edit warring greatly, and more importantly, let the reader know that there's some information being debated over in regard to whether it should be included. RJII 18:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have better things to do than stalk you, RJII. I haven't made any edits to New Deal, for instance. -- infinity0 18:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know I had made some edits that article? RJII 18:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I don't feel greatly about these templates. That's why I didn't vote "strongly". I just saw that the dispute it created on this mediation and guessed that it would create similar disputes in future. I'd like other people's opinions on this too. -- infinity0 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the template was added by backburner001 (talk · contribs) well into the dispute. It neither created nor exacerbated it. :) Radio Kirk talk to me 21:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I still have a feeling it's pointless, but I guess we shall see what others think of it. -- infinity0 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They might be; I'm not particularly passionate either way, but I do think they may deserve a little history before we can gauge usefulness—or uselessness. ;) Radio Kirk talk to me 21:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions isn't exactly private knowledge. Click on "stalk me" button on my user page and change "Infinity0" to "RJII". -- infinity0 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what articles you work on besides the ones I'm involved with and I don't care to know. I've never searched for what articles you're making edits to. I simply don't care. RJII

Neither do I. I was actually about to create Template:Inclusion myself, but then stumbled upon that mediation. -- infinity0 18:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you were about to create a template you're now trying to get deleted. LOL. Enough of this. Your first instinct is to delete anything you see me do (Remember the poker book? You had never been to that article before. You checked to see what I had been editing, went to that article and summarily deleted it without even bothering to see exactly what it was you were deleting). On a knee-jerk reaction, you're putting up for deletion templates that can be very valuable for Wikipedia simply because I'm the one that created them. If they were created under another name, you wouldn't be doing this and you know it. RJII

Whatever, man. That poker thing happened once. I put this up for deletion after seeing the pointless argument it caused. -- infinity0 17:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling anybody. RJII 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being so paranoid. I don't spend my time on wikipedia following you around. -- infinity0 17:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it when I edit under alternate names that you leave my edits alone? RJII 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Provide diffs to prove your claim, then. I treat all edits the same. -- infinity0 17:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! RJII 17:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created Template:Inclusion-Section for balance, and I believe these templates may be useful in creating dialogue. Not everyone with valid input remembers to visit an article's talk page; these serve as a guide. Naturally (like everything else about this encyclopedia and/or its users), there is always the possibility for escalation of disagreements; I tend to think, at least at this point, that the benefits outweigh the potential deficits. RadioKirk talk to me 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that. That was a great idea. Almost as ingenious as my creation. It looks like that one will be very valuable as well. RJII 04:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to note that I was looking for this template before RadioKirk created it. If one of these templates is deleted, both should be deleted. There is a potential that these templates can call attention to discussion, which was how I intended to use it. However, I also believe that these tags have the potential to fuel pre-existing content disputes. A general tag that would call attention to discussion on the talk page but avoid the potential of being used in revert wars would be more appropriate. -- backburner001 23:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom MiraLuka 06:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? You prefer edit wars? RJII 06:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AGF, RJII. --Rory0 96 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waste of space. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible should be replaced by something along the lines of "the scope of the section is in dispute", but serves no purpose other than to create or inflame controversy. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace (do not redirect) with newly created [[Template:Content]] — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite its possibility for abuse, there are situations where this could be helpful. I assume that people will use this template to be helpful in such situations in the future (although I'm not sure what I think about how it is being used now). However, I also think it should be re-worded to be less accusatory than it is now. --Tifego 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I reworded it slightly, although I doubt that'll change anyone's opinion.~~ --Tifego 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Replace with {{Content}} in agreeance with Arthur Rubin.
Delete and replace with the following, more general template proposed here. -- backburner001 00:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This template was created by CBDunkerson. I propose we use this template in place of the three listed above. -- backburner001 02:27, 17 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:Cellphone-stub

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 Moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should go to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To WP:SFD with it. Please read the instructions at the top of this page! Grutness...wha? 18:33, 11 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:Cameroon infobox

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 deleted. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it was out of date & replaced with Template:Infobox country MJCdetroit 16:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC) (moved from afd —Cryptic (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Redundant. Chairman S. ^Talk 01:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Saforrest 14:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. CG 21:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How many separate country infoboxes do we still have to find! Gizza^Chat ^© 07:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:07, 14 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. While that is the correct outcome, let me remind you for the future that it's pointless to try to settle questions of how to conform to existing laws or Wikipedia policies by a discussion or vote. This is not the place to change external laws or internal policies. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PolandGov

Image copyright tag, for non-commerical use images. In conflict with Wikipedias policy on non-commercial images, delete (I have tagged all the images using the template as no source (since they have no source) and have left this template in place so that and Polish Wikipedians can find and correctly licence the images in the next 7 days)--nixie 00:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a free license. --Carnildo 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 06:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-commercial use is better than nothing and, above all, the poland.gov allows any intitution to use them for any purpose except for financial gain. Wikipedia:Copyrights claims that non-commercial use is deprecated, but not forbidden. Also, each of the pictures links to the page from where it was uploaded, just go to the galleries of that page and check it. Anyway, just let me know if you can think of how a WWII picture of some Polish partisans or a Polish WWII tank could be used for commercial gain. An advertisement of carbines? Promotion of living in a forest? Absurd. Anyway, I contacted the portal in question and asked whether they would allow us to use the pictures under some other license, that would also allow us to publish them for commercial gain. Alternatively we could add the {{Non-free fair use in}} tag to every picture and solve the problem by claiming fair use in any article it's used in. Halibutt 11:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand the situation with non-commercial images. There is an executive order from Jimbo that they be deleted and a CSD (#I3) allowing them to be speedied. Some probably are fair use and should be marked as such, but simply allowing non-commercial use is not good enough. Dragons flight 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be a constructive solution then? Halibu tt 17:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Dragons flight 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and mark affected images with {{no license}}. We can only use these images if there's a fair use rationale. —Cryptic (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unliscened. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Khoikhoi 04:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as I already said, I mailed the Polish ministry some time ago (details at WP:PWNB). Yesterday I called the chief of the Internet Promotion Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and had a quick chat with him. He told me he's going to contact his lawyers, but he believes there'd be no problem with that as it's Wikipedia, after all (his own words :) ). So, let's wait a tad with deleting this tag, ok? Halibu tt 23:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending Halibutt's investigation. It would be a shame to delete it prematurely, if few days can give us more information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, decree or no decree from Jimbo, I still strongly believe that images under an unfree copyright should be kept. Just because "jimbo says so" does mean we all have to go out and delete all non-commercial only images. If there are issues with mirrors not being able to use these, then all we need to do is put the images under an appropriate category, and leave it up to the mirrors to exclude such images. Thus far, the only valid reason for deleting non-commercial only images that I've seen is because of Jimbo's message, and I think that's a terrible shame. If we can use the images here, then why not? It's most certainly beneficial to readers. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Halibutt.--Molobo 02:33, 16 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.