Jump to content

Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30, 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Greens

[edit]

Template:Greens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template serves no real purpose but to spam Green related articles. Delete Ardenn 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right (though is green philosophy on the same level as Anarchism and Fascism - which have symbols but are both fringe movements - or should it more resemble the liberalism and conservatism infoboxes, which, like the greens, are actively involved in the political process?) While I think the box looks sleeker and more serious without an image, perhaps a symbol, such as the recylcing symbol (Image:Recycle001.svg) would work. In any case, a meadow full of flowers isn't really in keeping with any of the other templates on political philosophy. - Nhprman 16:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please explain why you believe it was nominated in bad faith. I didn't detect that, but maybe I missed something, and maybe the nominator should be asked to explain his motivations better if that's the case. - Nhprman 04:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above; helps readers that are interested in Green party politics to easily navigate through Green party-related articles.--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 05:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep. I do not see why someone would want to delete a useful template which is one of the older ones amongst its comparators and has been quite stable. The notice at the top is obstructive to substantive reading of the encyclopedia. I think there is a consensus to keep now. – Kaihsu 17:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most political and religious organizations have boxes like this for their article sets. The boxes are useful b/c they're more user-friendly for novice researchers than categories are.--M@rēino 21:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redesign. This template is fine, just replace the image. --Coredesat 00:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found this template very useful and helpful Sjeraj 08:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear keep I think the sunflowers image was chosen because the sunflower is a symbol of many green movements, famously the early 80's German anti-nuclear movement. The sunflower is the logo of the Australian greens for example, and probably other national Green Parties. I support the use of a symbol in the template, perhaps a single drawn sunflower rather than a photo of many flowers would be better - certainly the recycling logo is inappropriate because that is a non-political symbol. - Drstuey 10:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I don't see any problem with this template. C mon 10:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A redesign (though subtle) has vastly improved the template, and it's obvious that the debate has been overwhelmingly "keep" since this is a useful template that is consistent with other political philosophies. If the nominator has any further issues, they should be aired now and addressed, or I would urge an Admin to close this discussion on Tuesday morning (7 days after opening, as is standard) if not early. - Nhprman List 14:36, 4 June 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 redirect to Template:User wikipedia/Counter Vandalism Unit. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User SCVF

[edit]

Template:User SCVF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unencyclopaedic, part of a dead project. Rory096 18:14, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tvtome

[edit]

Template:Tvtome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template was superseded by {{tvtome person}} and {{tvtome show}}. It's no longer in use, and it only works confusing for people. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 13:07, 30 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 -- Drini 22:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox synopsis

[edit]

Template:Infobox synopsis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) An attempt to provide a box for article summaries, but the discussion on the talk page established that lead sections should be used for that instead of yet another box. Has been orphaned. Zocky | picture popups 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Coredesat 17:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nick C 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Created in response to requests from Wikipedia users as an ungoing test, which Zocky, who indicated his own bias in the issue, aborted through mass orphaning (now reverted). As to the claim that a "discussion on the talk page established that lead sections should be used for that" - false. A handful of users expressed opinions. One of those then took it upon himself in an abuse of process to orphan the box to terminate the discussion by ensuring no-one else were aware of the boxes and so participate in the discussion. Opening paragraphs regularly fail to provide adequate summaries and attempts to edit them to do so generate regular edit wars. The idea of the box is to create a simple summary for readers who are simply skimming through WP and aren't reading detailed articles but are looking for a short, snappy summary of the article separate from the article proper. Non-editors off Wikipedia who visit the site were asked what they thought of the site. The absence of clearly marked summaries was their number 1 gripe. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 19:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This seems like a content dispute to me. TfD is not the way to solve content disputes. While I may think this template is a bad idea, because consensus over thet content has not been met on the talk page, I'd say keep this template for the time being. It doesn't seem to meet any criteria for deletion, yet.--Andrew c 19:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. A place for a synopsis already exists at the top of every article, so this template is redundant. Feel free to continue discussion at WP:LEAD, however. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems eminently useful, a great addition to certain articles, and increases clarity on the subjects. In other words, it will likely be deleted because it's too rational for Wikipedia. WP:Lead is a great ideal, but the template's creator is correct, article leads often fall far short of that ideal, and some instead become loaded with POV. This is a way to encapsulate a few major facts about an article subject in one place. Also, this is clearly not a content dispute, it seems like an honest and original way of dealing with a flaw - another in a long list of "ideals" that don't seem to reach into the daily edits of this encyclopedia. - Nhprman 02:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete please — Dan | talk 03:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't we have contents for that? Sophy's Duckling 03:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid that it will be yet another box fighting for the reader's attention, and that introducing this is a slippery slope that will serve as an excuse for not writing a good lead. To use programming speak: If a lead is broken, fix the lead, don't invent this box as a workaround. I do however think the idea should be discussed among more people than those freequenting tfd, and wouldn't object to the synopsis box staying in a few articles for a short while (maybe subst'ed) to give the idea some wider attention and thought. Shanes 03:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet more clutter at the top of articles. The lead section should summarise the article. If the lead section had content disputes they would also spill over into the summary box. Bad idea tastefully implemented. --Jumbo 07:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete per user Shanes --larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now so that it can have a proper discussion as a content issue, rather than as a template. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but start discussion on the issue of synopsis vs. lead section somewhere per Chcknwnm. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see how this really addresses problems with the lead section, people will fight about what goes into the summary instead. Kusma (討論) 02:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and work on the intros instead. —MiraLuka 03:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of User:Jtdirl justification. CC90 10:25, 12 June 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACF-Fiorentina and Template:Gazeta-Sporturilor

[edit]

Template:ACF-Fiorentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Gazeta-Sporturilor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Both of these were created for use on images to suggest that all rights to the images had been released. Checking the websites linked to from these templates does not bear this claim out. All images tagged with these templates have now been deleted as copyright violations. Angr (talk) 09:24, 30 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. With 20 times more editors asking for it to be kept than for it to be deleted, and many, many more users than normal having voiced their opinions in this TFD, it is quite clear what the consensus is, and it is not for deletion. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Portal

[edit]

Template:Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Last TfD
Complete violation of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't talk about themselves. The template is also a GFDL violation. (Note that I couldn't put the TfD notice on the template itself because the code is so complicated, so it's on the talk.) Rory096 05:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the notice to the template. --CBDunkerson 11:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pwzn0re

  • keep our purpose is to educate, this facilitatres that and provides more information. if we delete this portal, are we going to delete the sex portal off the sex article next, or start eliminating the portals all toghther? theres a reason we have portal and they should be linked to from relevant articles Qrc2006 19:02, 30 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. IceKarmaॐ 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Legal disclaimer

[edit]

Template:Legal disclaimer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This template is self-referential and in any event in contravention of Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates; inasmuch as the template is used only twice (once in mainspace), its existence but absence from nearly every page to which it could be appended surely invites one salient objection from NDT, viz., that The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. Hence, delete. Joe 02:44, 30 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Mario vs. DK series

[edit]

Template:Mario vs. DK series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Barely a series; not enough games to warrant being separate from a Donkey Kong template or a Mario template. A Link to the Past (talk) 02:11, 30 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 保留 - Mailer Diablo 15:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan-blue and Pan-green Userboxes

[edit]

Template:User Pan-blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Template:User Pan-green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This Userbox is polemic. Both Pan-Blue and Pan-Green are big parts of Taiwanese politics, and that's why there are articles for both of them. However, they do not belong in Userboxes as they are polemic and divisive. Also, consider the fact that both {{User CCP}} and {{User CCP-0}} have been deleted. Hong Qi Gong 01:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But both Pan-Green and Pan-Blue are NOT political parties. They are political coalitions that happen to include multiple political parties. Hong Qi Gong 03:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a userbox for the United Left Coalition of Spain. The NP and PFP are offshoots of the KMT, and I don't really see any reason why political coalitions, especially the ones as tightly united as the ones in Taiwan, are not allowed. We need to see the CCP deletion page so we can understand what happened in that page. BlueShirts 03:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted here about the CCP deletion - Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Template:User_CCP. Hong Qi Gong 03:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, this is a speedy delete looking at the clearout of political userboxes. - Hahnchen 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just a procedural note, this isn't a "vote" in any sense of the word, it's a discussion. As this link notes, saying (in effect) "I like it. Keep it" is not an effective discussion point because it does not address Wikipedia policies. What does, for example, is saying that the deletion of the CCP template set a precedent, and the argument to keep these got far weaker after that was decided. Also, as noted above, Divisive political topics AS TEMPLATES are not in keeping with Wikipedia's mission and the role of templates is not to act as political rallying points, as these clearly are (if these templates are transfered to User space, that's a bit different.) So if the Administrator closing this Tfd debate is fair, he/she will not simply "count up the votes" (though that often happens) but will weigh the policies I've cited and others here, and make a decision. - Nhprman 04:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't agree with a TfD, you could always bring it up at Wikipedia:Deletion review, if it hasn't been already... --Disavian 05:41, 2 June 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. 這個討論已經结束。请不要对这个存档做任何编辑。
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_30&oldid=1080958819"