Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20, 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 delete Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:OntarioSH

[edit]

Template:OntarioSH (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
As per similar templates, redundant with list articles, and categories. — May. 12, '06 [09:17] <freakofnurxture|talk>

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 Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Headgear box

[edit]

Template:Headgear box (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was created to replace template Headgear which was deleted. However in the discussion almost all of the participants who voted to deleted, voted to deleted this template as well see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_11#Template:Headgear for the full discussion. Jon513 20:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lean towards keep, as I have no problem with a bottom box. My problem is with a placement as a top-of-page box. Let's hang onto this one and implement it more fully. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a particularly useful infobox, and precedent was against it. If this survives the TfD, I'd suggest a rename to something along the lines of "apparel" or "clothing" rather than head gear, which conjures up images of orthodonics. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that "Headgear" conjures up images of orthodontics. But I didn't come up with the name that this was based on. However, I think that "head wear" would be a more appropriate title if we choose to rename, provided that this template survives. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: as a box at the end of the page, it functions as a nicely designed "see also" collection (quite different from the authoritive top template). Comment: since there are no subcategories of head gear but only the head gear items, it could easily be changed into a category (unlike a template "solar system" which does have branches/subcategories first: "planets", "moons" and "asteroids"; and only then the items "earth, venus, mars, etc"). Could, not necessarily should. -- ActiveSelective 10:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is task for primary categories at the end of article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above. In this format not linked to a project it is unnecessary and better as a category. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:39, 27 May 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 delete WP:CSD#T1 by Xoloz. — xaosflux Talk 19:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Template:Shutup

[edit]

Template:Shutup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Bumped into this while searching for something else. Rubbish created by an anon 9 months ago. Lucky13pjn 19:24, 20 May 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. — xaosflux Talk 16:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anti-war topics

[edit]

Template:Anti-war topics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ludicrously long, replace by category. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think there is a problem with this. The more people who are aware that are aware of the process of template deletion and their say in it, the better. Sophy's Duckling 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote spamming has been ruled out by the arbcom irrespective of message. Schuminweb broke the rules. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom --Strothra 03:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there template focusses on Western anti-war movements, the solution is not to delete the template, but to expand it to include other anti-war movements. While I probably disagree vehemently with many of the subjects of the articles, organizing them doesn't promote their point of view. I also don't understand how you could see Galloway as not anti-war. (I'd never heard of him before, so I am just trusting the Wikipedia article.) --Habap 11:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Galloway has this: Galloway stated "I am on the anti-imperialist left... If you are asking did I support the Soviet Union, yes I did. Yes, I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life. If there was a Soviet Union today, we would not be having this conversation about plunging into a new war in the Middle East, and the US would not be rampaging around the globe.". Apparently Galloway strongly favours the Cold War and possibly Soviet-backed aggression Bwithh 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are varrious problems around putting the template on to biog' pages but that doesn't mean that it should be on no pages. Also, how does this template act as a soap box any more then Template:Fascism sidebar? Both are usefull what ever your political perspective.--JK the unwise 12:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but drastically cut down Expanding this Anglo-American biased template to include other anti-war movements would make it far too long and unwieldy. I favour cutting it down to a menu of simple categories with no mention of specific organizations. Bwithh 14:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - too long atm, but a useful tool. -- infinity0 13:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really think that the template is far to U.S-centric and the contents of it could theoretically be endlessly long. I'm not sure either way for delete or for keep but I just thought I'd add my two cents.--Jersey Devil 23:41, 27 May 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 improperly nominated, relaunched a discussion at WP:COMIC Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:GreenLantern

[edit]

Template:GreenLantern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is highly inaccurate and useless insomuch as there are various characters known as "Green Lantern", and hence each individual character has his/her own page and corresponding template (in most cases). As each Lantern has his/her own character specific allies/adversaries/notable stories, this template does not accomplish the purpose it seems to have been designed for initially. NetK 00:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom as long as this template isn't being used anywhere that a better template isn't available.--Ssbohio 04:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this template is a "catch all" listing the allies, colleagues, adversaries and such for one or two Green Lanterns (which already have their own templates) and which fail to apply to the other Green Lanterns listed. NetK 16:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and kick over to WP:COMIC to try and fix this mess - What a trainwreck. NetK made replacement "templates" (which are used in only one article each) for each of Hal Jordan, Kyle Rayner, and possibly others, and removed a template that was supposed to be for the Green Lantern Corps as a whole. I understand why, because this template had lots of stuff that was only important for one single character instead of the Corps as a whole, but the two new templates are just as bloated as this used to be and largely overlap. Personally, I think all of them need to be merged together into one a single unified-subject template or all deleted, but in any case, this is a more-complex issue that won't necessarily result in deletion, something that should be discussed at the relevant Wikiproject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A_Man_In_Black: Since we both agree that none of these templates perform the appropriate task, what is an alternative suggestion? You concede that the GL template has "lots of stuff that was noly important to one single character" and my solution isn't workable from your frame of reference. So please offer constructive suggestions instead of proclaiming a fellow editor's point of view as a "trainwreck". I'd expect a little more civility from an administrator. NetK 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This situation is a trainwreck, and I stand by that statement. It was a trainwreck before you came to it, honestly, with the oogly, bloated old {{GreenLantern}} mucking up the place. You made a good-faith effort to fix it, but it isn't yet all dealt with, as now we have several single-use templates (which, honestly, still aren't ready for prime time) instead one ugly navbox template.
        As for stuff related to only one character, you actually did a great job of slimming down this template, such that I think it should be used as the starting place for a single unified template and the other single-use templates should be deleted/redirected. Like I said, keep and remit to WP:COMIC for further refinement and discussion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • A_Man_In_Black: Thanks for your kindly reply and the clarification, I definitely concur there should be a compromise that will satisfy most parties. When I initially saw the template with an "ally" of all the Green Lanterns as Alexandra Dewitt (aka Kyle's Girl-in-the-Fridge) I was like "huh"??? So either we have a generalized template with not much detail for all GLs, or specific templates with the level of detail initially intended. A complex issue indeed. NetK 13:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This template was orphaned before being placed on TFD, and the TFD notice wasn't placed anywhere on the template itself. I didn't learn that this was on TFD until I checked whatlinkshere for the template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:21, 23 May 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. — xaosflux Talk 16:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User Christian

[edit]

Template:User Christian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template was controversially amended by several editors in an edit war over which all parties have acknowledged regret. DRV discussion resulted in a consensus to undelete and relist this template. This a procedural nomination, so I abstain. I urge all commenters to treat this matter with respect. Xoloz 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Reword to avoid T2. Keep - If edit war is used as a rational to delete a(n) template/article, then many pages on Wikipedia has to be deleted as well? -Hunter 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rewrite. The edit war merits an RfC at the least (and perhaps even an RfAr, on Cyde in particular). But the template itself is currently violating T2. However, since T2 is a new proposal, we should avoid deleting too many templates with it and generating controversy and division. So instead, circumvent the problem by both preserving the template and adhering to CSD T1/T2: move this template to {{user christianity}}, change the text to "This user is interested in Christianity.", and for anyone who wants the original, simply subst the raw code to their userpage. The exact same course has been taken for every other template on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Religion, mainly as a preventative measure to avoid a big, ugly war over implementing T2, when we should be worrying about editing the encyclopedia, not squabbling over userboxes. -Silence 18:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though this was not the reason this template was nominated for deletion (Sorry, I believe in due process). If this is used as the reason to nominate this template for deletion, I probably would support your view and vote the same as you. Hunter 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He can. People object to users putting the text in a template, not to putting the text in a box. Personally, I think both objections are rather silly, but there's clearly significant support for the idea that there shouldn't be belief-expressing templates, else T2 wouldn't have lasted this long (though there seem to be more people who oppose than support its usage). -Silence 21:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see proof that this userbox has led to any division among users, besides the edit wars and the speedy deletion. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 16:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were obviously so, Mr. Sidaway, I would not have relisted it. While your observation is welcome, it is inaccurate. As for the good served by this discussion -- a calm discussion helps ease tensions, and mollifies the anger of those rightly upset with the events surrounding the previous improper speedying of this template. As I said, consensus at DRV did determine the previous speedy was improper. Xoloz 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
D-Day: Look no farther than the Jason Gastrich RFC. --Cyde↔Weys 02:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is nothing offensive whatsoever about the words "This user is a Christian." Sophy's Duckling 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sophy's Duckling Brian | (Talk) 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious speedy keep. Think about how to show convincingly that this template violates "Don't be a dick". — Timwi 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm getting dragged into this dumb userbox war. For those of you who think a vote for keep==subt and delete... no. The content is not the purpose of the userbox. The ability to find other users of a certain POV to help balance out articles is the purpose of a userboxe. If the purpose was to say "I am a chirstian" on your user page, then people could just type "I am a chirstian" on their user page. --Rayc 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — speedy if possible. Nowhere near T1/T2 in any acceptable formulation. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not divisive. —MiraLuka 02:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per many keeps above. ~Linuxerist E/L/T 03:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep (not "subsist and deleate")... it would be helpful to know who is a Christian, esspecally if editing articles relating to Christanity. Mike McGregor (Can) 04:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: First off, I'm not a christian and am actually quite opposed to the religion (and pretty much all others) but I do not see any harm in allowing someone to express their affiliation as a christian. If the problem is that it's a template, than just speedy delete every template that expresses an opinion and get it over with, instead of slowly doing this one by one. The Ungovernable Force 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why delete something that simply states what you are? Some people aren't afraid of showing what they are and have no issue with others knowing. Some people may just put it there for "status" but that's highly unlikely in this case. Clearly doesn't violate any of the T's... --Ivorydust 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You cannot be offended by this. Thats just stupid. And it simply states that the person is a christian. It give people an insight into who they are, so they can understand their edits more without wrongfully judging them. If people wanted the Userbox war to end, they would stop wrongfuly nominating countless numbers of userboxes - • The Giant Puffin • 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep possible - is this political correctness gone mad once more? I'm not Christian but many of my friends are, and so are millions of other people in the world. This is insanity. Surely if you delete this, you have to delete all the religion ones. Michaelritchie200 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless a decision is made to delete all templates expressing beliefs, be they religious, political, food preference, favorite sports teams, etc. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am a Christian and I find it pathetic that you're offended by this. This just tells people that the user is a Christian. I disagree with Atheism but you don't see me proposing deletion on the Atheism templates. --Tuspm 01:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not offended by this template; I just don't think it's an appropriate use of Wikipedia resources. A This user is interested in Christianity template would be quite encyclopedic and would avoid giving the impression that we edit as advocates here. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if this gets template gets kept, I'll recreate "User satanist" (which is currently protected against creation). If we allow one religion, we should allow them all. :-) bogdan 07:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure that just about everyone who voted "keep" above would agree with you: fairness is the most important thing. So rather than exacerbating an error by asking it to recur elsewhere, why not fix the original error? Nominate {{user satanist}} for undeletion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Userbox debates. It should at the least be undeleted, moved and rewritten to say "This user is interested in Satanism.", as this one should; deletion is completely unnecessary. -Silence 08:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to talk about fairness then why not delete the template on the Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians? If there are satanists on wikipedia feel free to go to undelete. Falphin 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should recreate the satanist userbox is this is kept. I dont think that we should have one religion on here, and not have another. The spagetti monster one should be kept because it is a legitimate view - • The Giant Puffin • 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistency with userbox policy right now. First off, this will probably just get speedied regardless of what ever decision is reached here. I agree, if this is allowed, Satanism should be recreated, but don't count on it. Until we can come to a consensus about userbox policy there is going to be a lot of mixed messages sent out, and there's not much we can do about it. The Ungovernable Force 05:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because this whole userbox thing is one big war. Admins deleting like its going out of fashion, and others trying to stop it. The sooner a good policy gets through the better. Even if templates are kept on here, theyre either renominated, speedied or end up protected - • The Giant Puffin • 07:59, 25 May 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User No Napoleon

[edit]

Template:User No Napoleon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
It's a frivolous template becuase it's for glovepuppets only. And it's not a happy face. Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.com.au 16:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep was closed just a few hours ago! I don't usually opine like that, but at least a couple of days... Yet another lame sig I came up with T | @ | C 17:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oppose, prima facie, deletion of userboxes one by one while consensus is lacking on the larger issue. These kind of userboxes do no harm and, by and large, are opposed with the intent to artificially limit the behavior of Wikipedians. That they are in template space is an issue of system architecture; they are not used in article space. The controversy needs to be put to bed once & for all, not endlessly played out here.--Ssbohio 18:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as was decided in the TfD discussion that ended earlier today. Bucketsofg✐ 19:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the Consensus, wow it seems so long ago that I created this userbox... I'm glad to see many people like it, but I also jumped off the userbox bandwagon a few months ago... I would almost prefer to see it deleted so that users would stop copying each others user boxes and come up with some clever ones on their own like i did back when I enjoyed having userboxes on my user page. Croat Canuck Go Leafs Go 23:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious speedy delete Croat Canuck, just becuase you created the template doesn't mean you own it, it's not my rule, it's not your schools rule, it's the law, it's an angry face.Myrtone@Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.com.au 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does that comment count as a double vote? --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 11:43, 21 May 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 Circeus 03:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Template:Satanism-footer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Redirect to Template:Satanism. Currently has no pages using it. ^demon[yell at me] /01:13, 20 May 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_May_20&oldid=1136067321"